T1B

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:57 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:
I still don't see how something can come from nothing, on its own.

Just ask Billy Preston.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:03 pm**

Hawking's just pissed because he's in a wheelchair.

If only he could kneel and pray...

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:55 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:I still don't see how something can come from nothing, on its own.

You mean something like God?

Posted: **Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:00 pm**

On a related note, this guy wants to replace Russ Feingold:

MADISON (WKOW) -- Dave Westlake, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, says creationism should be taught in Wisconsin schools and that the earth is thousands, not billions of years old.

"I believe in creationism," Westlake said in an interview with 27 News. "I just happen to believe we were created the way we are."

Westlake called for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, and said states and local school boards should determine a district's curriculum. But, he added, if evolution is taught, so should creationism.

"If they're going to teach one, they have to teach both."

When asked if the earth was around 6,000 years old, as some creationists believe, Westlake said, "That's probably a general timeline. There are very solid supporting evidence out there, or data out there, that shows that it's very reasonable to expect that it's not nearly as old as science says it is."

A former Army officer with a degree in environmental science from West Point, Westlake dismissed the idea of man-made global warming.

"I don't see evidence to say that that is the cause of climate change right now," he said. "But I wouldn't go so far to say sunspots are the sole cause of any rise in the mercury."

When it comes to social issues, Westlake says abortion should be outlawed completely.

"I recognize that I cannot as a man, I cannot possibly... understand what a woman is going through in the case of a rape or incest, but I have to be consistent with what I believe and what my faith says," he said.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:04 am**

too bad Hawking can't really prove a damn thing he says. it's all theory and wonderful speculation.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:12 am**

titlover wrote:too bad Hawking can't really prove a damn thing he says. it's all theory and wonderful speculation.

You're right. Let's just say someone up in the sky did it all since Hawking has no evidence.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:16 am**

This couldn't possibly mean that it might have been Dinsdale, and the universe is held together by square head deck screws??? The irony of it all.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:17 am**

Carson wrote:Hawking's just pissed because he's in a wheelchair.

If only he could kneel and pray...

Shrubber don't post here anymore. He's beenm banned.

A for æffort, though

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:33 am**

Jsc810 wrote:I still don't see how something can come from nothing, on its own.

Then who, or what created God?

Take your time.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:31 am**

Cuda wrote:
Carson wrote:Hawking's just pissed because he's in a wheelchair.

If only he could kneel and pray...
Shrubber don't post here anymore. He's beenm banned.

A for æffort, though

Blow me.

:P

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:25 pm**

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote: Blow me.

:P

How would you know if he did?

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:52 pm**

R-Jack wrote:
Roger_the_Shrubber wrote: Blow me.

:P
How would you know if he did?

By the presence of Biggie's DNA.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:59 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:I still don't see how something can come from nothing, on its own.
Then who, or what created God?

Take your time.

For those who believeth in Him hath created Him even if in their own mind.

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:40 pm**

IndyFrisco wrote:For those who believeth in Him hath created Him even if in their own mind.

You been putting Peyote in that BBQ sauce of yours?

Posted: **Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:23 pm**

Papa Willie wrote:
BSmack wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:I still don't see how something can come from nothing, on its own.
Then who, or what created God?

Take your time.

Easy - Goober.

About time you recognized my power.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 7:17 am**

BSmack wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:I still don't see how something can come from nothing, on its own.
Then who, or what created God?

Take your time.

In our observable world, we've never seen energy (which is what all that we see is) arise from non-energy.

Based on what we've always observed, it makes perfect sense for Jsc to say he doesn't see how something can come from nothing.

Hawking is asking us to believe something which we have no reason, based on all that we know and have observed, to buy into.

A Creator, on the other hand is not an observable entity with limited parameters of operation that have been observable - and never deviated from.

Therefore one is not necessarily bound by any pre-recognized limits as to what He may be, how He is, or how He came to be.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:10 am**

Doesn't this make Jesus a charlatan? That's gonna piss off those 12 dudes that tongue-scrubbed his wrinkled brown anus in the desert after he said "this is my body, take of it and eat"...

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:48 pm**

Hawking apparently never read Robert Browning Hamilton:

"Progress, man's distinctive mark alone, Not God's, and not the beast's;

God is, they are; Man partly is, and wholly hopes to be."

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:49 pm**

poptart wrote:In our observable world, we've never seen energy (which is what all that we see is) arise from non-energy. Based on what we've always observed, it makes perfect sense for Jsc to say he doesn't see how something can come from nothing. Hawking is asking us to believe something which we have no reason, based on all that we know and have observed, to buy into. A Creator, on the other hand is not an observable entity with limited parameters of operation that have been observable - and never deviated from. Therefore one is not necessarily bound by any pre-recognized limits as to what He may be, how He is, or how He came to be.

So what you're saying is that you have no proof save your absolute lack of scientific knowledge.

Got it.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:31 pm**

Invariably, when someone posts this ...

BSmack wrote:So what you're saying is ...

... they say something completely inane.

My post said what I say.

Jsc is correct in what he said (that he doesn't see how something could come from nothing on it's own) because Hawking is asking us to believe that energy came from non-energy.
He's asking us to believe something which is fundamentally contrary to all that we've ever observed and recognized.
We recognize that it is completely IMPOSSIBLE for energy to come from non-energy.

But a Creator, on the other hand, does not have a history of observable limited parameters (and never deviated from) regarding what He may be, how He is, or how He came to be.

Your posting of the question, "Then who created God," is a question that may not make sense, because we are not limited by the already observable reality that God needs to be created.

It may very well be that God didn't need to be created.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:44 pm**

KC Scott wrote:
There is Scientific evidence that proves man evolved rather than was created

(missing) Link?

Not unheard of Scottie, but it's tough to get a murder conviction on circumstantial evidence alone without a body.

That's like Al Gore, L-Tard and others like them proclaiming that there is Scientific evidence that proves man has caused the Earth to warm.

Darwin's Theory remains just that for now.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:43 pm**

KC Scott wrote: Homo Erectus

~giggle~

Sincerely,

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:59 pm**

poptart wrote:It may very well be that God didn't need to be created.

It may very well be that monkeys fly out of your butt. But that doesn't make it true. Is it possible for you to just once back up your assertions with something other than pure pablum?

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:29 pm**

Martyred wrote:

Bravo, but that thing reminds me of the opening ceremonies of the Athens Olympics.

...for ambiguous reasons.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:19 pm**

KC Scott wrote:Blah, blah, blah...

Hey look! Pictures!

Blah, blah, blah...

Thanks.

All of which “proves” exactly dick.

Oh, I’m sure tens of thousands of scientists world-wide are relieved to know that they are now free to pursue other interests because some Account Exec from KC declared that Evolution was a “proven fact” on an Internet smack board.

I’m familiar with the argument. Not your fault that you happened to step into my wheelhouse, but I’m relatively sure that I’ve got a piece of heavy-bond paper in a box somewhere that has the words “University of Missouri” and “Bachelor of Science – Biology” printed on it that is almost as useless as your take.

FWIW, I DO NOT NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

But I don’t agree with you either. Humans have 60% of the genotype for a banana. Show me a chimp that can compose sonnets or build hospitals, and I'm sold.

Jury’s still out, pal. Evolution is FAR from “proven” science. ‘Sayin’. Carry on.

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:28 pm**

Show me a chimp that can compose sonnets or build hospitals, and I'm sold.

Would you settle for one that sells windchimes and posts bogus PETS?

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:35 pm**

^^^^^^^^^^

WHY do you hate chimps?!

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:43 pm**

Truman wrote:^^^^^^^^^^

WHY do you hate chimps?!

Are you denying that m2 could be the missing link?

Posted: **Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:10 pm**

I'm thinking you give him too much credit. My banana allegory is closer.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:11 am**

MORE evidence of a Belton education at its finest.

Seriously, Scott, why are you bent on proving that you graduated summa cum paul with this topic?

Do you REALLY wanna know what my take is?!

It’s that you are AMAZINGLY way-the-fuck-in-over-your-head when it comes to this subject.

What part of the “jury’s still out” do you struggle with?!

It.
Is.
A.
Fucking.
THEORY.

Jesus-in-a-Jaguar.

You’re li’l empirical slideshow has as much credibility as an L-Tard post.

I’ll state again: I’M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU.

But the Theory of Evolution hasn’t been proven.

Let me repeat: IT HASN’T BEEN PROVEN.

Kinda like you’re Crusade against the Believers.

Accept it. Unless you’re bent on continuing to make yourself look ill-informed, ignorant, and stupid.

Your choice.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:34 am**

poptart wrote:In our observable world, we've never seen energy (which is what all that we see is) arise from non-energy.

Non-energy? Oh, and you wouldn't want to forget mass. That has a bit to do with that "which is all that we see is"

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:29 am**

No, you posted evidence to support a THEORY to back up your beliefs.

Even MORE ponderous is that you would drag pops up-and-down this Board for his conviction, yet claim Bode in the name of unproven Science and expect not to be called out on it.

If you had elected to post that there is Scientific evidence that suggests that man evolved rather than was created, then I’m fairly certain that I would’ve been content to lurk this thread at my leisure and spared you a trip to the woodshed.

The bottom line is, Scott, that you can’t “prove” Darwin’s theory any more than pops can “prove” the existence of his Deity. Of course, that doesn’t stop you and half this Board from going out of your way to ridicule his beliefs.

You post pictures...
He posts Scriptures.
Leap of Faith, regardless. Neither actually "proves" dick.

Ponderous indeed....

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:58 am**

Spoken like a genuinely ignorant tard. Yes, there is evidence to "suggest" that human beings evolved...lots of evidence. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever to "suggest" that humans were created.

Check back in once you're able to think critically and weigh evidence.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:11 am**

KC Scott wrote:...a discussion of tangible evidence in support of a theory

Ah. I see that the goal posts now have have wheels...

No argument here. You did indeed post tangible evidence in support of a theory. Which has been my assertion all along. Evolution is just a theory. Rack you for coming correct.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:27 am**

Truman wrote:
KC Scott wrote:...a discussion of tangible evidence in support of a theory
Ah. I see that the goal posts now have have wheels...

No argument here. You did indeed post tangible evidence in support of a theory. Which has been my assertion all along. Evolution is just a theory. Rack you for coming correct.

Gravitational attraction is also a theory.

What are the chances of getting you to test it by jumpint off the nearest 10 story building?

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:34 am**

mvscal wrote:Spoken like a genuinely ignorant tard. Yes, there is evidence to "suggest" that human beings evolved...lots of evidence. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever to "suggest" that humans were created.

Check back in once you're able to think critically and weigh evidence.

...And posted like a flat-lined invalid.

I don't disagree with the evidence that suggests that humans evolved. I'm just not as quick as you to dismiss evidence -spiritual or otherwise - that I might personally disagree with that suggests differently.

Keeping an oprn mind on a topic before ALL the evidence is gathered IS critical thinking. Coming to a conclusion without all the known facts is symptomatic of a close-minded fucktard. Stick with re-writing your history books, Loser.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:11 am**

KC Scott wrote:
Truman wrote:Ah. I see that the goal posts now have have wheels...
No moving of the goalposts here....

KC Scott wrote: DNA that matches ours.
Skeleton's almost identical.
Not just pictures - and that's what you don't want to talk about.

Oh, you moved 'em alright...

Did you not post...

"...a discussion of tangible evidence in support of a theory"

...in the same thread as

"proven evidence that man has evolved"?

Can't have it both ways, pal.

It's either proven or it isn't.

Theory vs. Law

A Theory with tangible Evidence vs. a theory of written words handed from one dude to another

Science vs. Superstitions

You've still said nothing - You believe nothing and you've contributed nothing of substance to this discussion

No, I've been fairly clear that you're talking out of your ass on this subject. And I BELIEVE that you haven't a clue distingushing between Scientific Law and Scientific Theory.

For someone who fancies himself an intellectual, I'd have expected a better showing

Made me laugh.

Guess that makes twice you've been "proven" wrong in the same thread. Sorry to disappoint, pal.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:20 am**

KC Scott wrote:
Truman wrote: I don't disagree with the evidence that suggests that humans evolved. I'm just not as quick as you to dismiss evidence -spiritual or otherwise - that I might personally disagree with that suggests otherwise.
Spiritual Evidence?

Wanna give us an example of this Spirtual Evidence?

Good luck with that one....

:wink:

See tart, pop.

You DO realize that Evangelicals are every bit as dismissive and derisive of your empirical evidence of Evolution as you are of their "evidence" of Creationism, as expressed by their Bible?

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:58 am**

I know it’s important, I honestly do but we’re talking about theroy. We’re talking about theroy man. We’re talking about theroy. We’re talking about theroy. We’re not talking about the evidence. We’re talking about theroy.

Posted: **Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:10 am**

BSmack wrote:Is it possible for you to just once back up your assertions with something other than pure pablum?

LOL

I didn't make any assertion.

We don't have an observable physical law, which has never been deviated from, which tells us that God must be created.

We DO have a never deviated from standard which tells us that energy can not arise from non-energy.

Therefore your "gotcha" question to Jsc - "Then who created God," is no gotcha question at all.

Scott wrote:What I'm saying is you dance around the issue.

You totally disregard science - the evolution of man is a perfect example.

There is Scientific evidence that proves man evolved rather than was created - yet you chose to disregard it beacuse it doesn't line up with your belief system.

I didn't dance around anything, Scott.

And I sure didn't say anything at all about evolution.

If you want to believe it - or if it has been proven to you to your satisfaction, that's fine.

It's your call to make.

T1B

God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe

Re: God didn't create the universe