Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I have a feeling everything will collapse soon and there will need to be a revamp of global currency (probably electronic based).

Don't panic. There is literally nothing to worry about unless you're a criminal.

Medal of Honor: Airborne

At 11/20/11 01:01 AM, DukenukemALT wrote: I feel like shit.
Please help me NG

Lol @ the logic.

Close off the thread, quick!!

TheFlea

Food Lion likes to pull this nonsense.

Something like this.

HAHAHA YES

At 10/19/11 09:34 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 10/19/11 09:25 PM, Hybridization wrote: Actually there is. Something that created everything would be outside the bounds of our universe, and therefore, outside the boundaries of time. Given this, the Creator would not need a creator Himself because He has existed before there was time.

This isn't to prove/disprove the existence of a High Power. But, logically, there is an answer to that question.

Except that answer is illogical. Saying the Creator would not need to be created because he existed before there was time is a concept completely incomprehensible and in our realm of understanding, impossible.

It's not incomprehensible at all actually. Time is physical. A high power is above the physical. Therefore, a high power is above time. This makes perfect sense and is completely within our realm of knowledge.

I feel the same way about BBS mods.

I disapprove.

I make my own.

I disagree.

1. Become an atheist.

With this, you must turn any thread that mention religion into a flame war.

2. Argue about absolutely anything and insist your opinion is an objective fact.

Usually consigns with number 1.

3. End all arguments with something along the lines of "You're a moron."

After this, you have won the argument.

4. Post many pointless threads - preferably ones about your latest sexual accomplishment.

Acting like a faggot is a significant bonus.

5. Refer to "Wade" or "Tom" frequently (or any veteran NG user).

It also helps to reply to all of their posts - preferably with "kiss-ass" remarks.

6. Omit contradicting evidence when quoting another member in a debate.

This is a perfect way to use number 3.

7. Care (at all) about your NG stats.

Simple enough.

8. Never change your signature or aura.

Ever.

9. Make posts about your "NG popularity" and/or the infamy of another user.

Subject lines with the name of the user in question helps.

10. Use words or phrasings that a typical college student would use in a thesis paper - yet, make no sense in the argument whatsoever.

If someone calls you out on this, use number 3 with a tad of "I graduated from [insert prestigious university]".

Do all of these things, and you will be a popular, yet, anonymous collaboration of text on an insignificant online forum :3.

Also, never use smilies.

At 10/16/11 04:39 AM, Hybridization wrote:

At 10/16/11 03:10 AM, streetbob wrote:

At 10/15/11 08:30 PM, BizzarroPMP wrote:

At 10/15/11 08:02 PM, Hybridization wrote:

I took a garbage man to the dump.

I gave a cabbie a ride home.

I arrested a police officer.

I out hooked a hooker!

I took a cashier's order.

I fixed a plumber's toilet.

I approve.

At 10/12/11 03:52 PM, BrocoliClock wrote: Well, I was searching up clocks on Google, and it came up with Clockcrew, StrawberryClock, etc etc

That's pretty much my story lol

At 9/30/11 04:07 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 9/30/11 11:32 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote:

Somebodies possibly metaphorical kiddy has been a very naughty girl.

"Job: Photography & Design"

Never mind, mystery solved.

What?

So give Congress even more time to do nothing? No thanks.

I don't get why we need to abide by the First Amendment in EVERY case. Why would I want someone to have the freedom of posing suggestive images of my underage daughter online for abunch of pervs to stare at?

Deism is a type of worship of God theoretically.

I thought America was based on the belief that everyone would worship God in any way they wish, not any religion. Back then, you were either Christian or barbaric.

At 8/10/10 05:52 AM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: Seriously, this shit is real.
To me, it's sad to see Christianity turned into an anti-Islam hate machine.

I see where you're coming from, but we can't associate all Christians with this one pastor. Just as there are moderate Islamics there are moderate Christians. Unfortunately, there are radicals on both side as well (ie: Talliban currently & Crusades of the past)

Also, it's a rough generalization. Most AMERICANS aren't too open to the islamic community in this day and time. But, I do agree, it is sad to see so much hatred.

We were sent home from school immediately because I lived on an Air Force base. My family just watched the news for a couple of hours while the base was on alert.

I was not attempting to show how the Bible is a science book, because it is not. It simply is scientifically accurate. I don't think anyone included the (C) expansion verses and their evaporation - condensation description. While I understand the vagueness of some, there are others that cannot be refuted for their meaning (ie: circle of the Earth. I am pretty sure that to the normal reader, this means "circle" as in "ball" not disk...)

Since most of your responses were opinionated, I feel no need to directly address them. (Except for the boxing glove, whom I have ignored completely at this point)

At 11/29/09 05:06 PM, Warforger wrote:

Now, odds and likelihood are all that mean to you? Ok then, so let's say for every billion dollars one is made of Platinum, would you say these didn't exist then? Ok then lets raise the stakes, for every 10 trillion dollars there is one Platinum Dollar, now would it exist? Of course it would since the Government spends Trillions every year. Now there are more Galaxies out there then grains of sand on every beach in world, and your telling me just because life is highly unlikely it won't happen? Referring to my example, if your equation is right, there's probably hundreds or thousands of Intelligent life just on a guess.

Your metaphor is irrelevant. One, because the odds I am referring to are odds of something occurring NOT existing. Two, because it acknowledges the fact that the dollar exists, and therefore defeats the purpose of attempting to prove it does or does not (which you also countered). Please fully comprehend the issue before making another comment like that on impulse.

:aviewaskewed:

I have been thinking critically about what you say regarding the validity of the Bible. After some careful contemplation and research as to be 100% sure of what I say, these verses are what I have found. (Please read the verses I did not quote directly. I excluded some for space, though I will add quotes if someone needs clarification and cannot look it up for himself).

-I think someone made this reference before: The Bible has SCIENTIFIC facts that the scientific community figured out many years afterward. For example:

A) 1 Cor. 15:41 states that every star is unique to every other star. All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (I understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

B) Job 26:7 states that the Earth is suspended in space. Quote: "He stretches out the north over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing."

C.1) Job 28:25 (quoted): "To [establish] a weight for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure..." The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world's hydrological cycle which, in turn, sustains life on the earth. (If you are a physics enthusiast, please ignore my omission of the terms mass, gravity, and density).

C.2) [Expanding on the hydrological cycle]: Job 36:27-29, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10, (evaporation, electrical discharges, condensation, and precipitation)

D) The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life - confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier in Leviticus 17:11.

E) It is a proven fact that a person's mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us through King Solomon about 950 BC (Proverbs 14, 15, 16, 17, and many more)

F) The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical in Isaiah 40:22. (Note that Aristotle suggested this 300 years after the book of Isaiah was written). This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing "A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World", Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, "theologians" of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical).

G) The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter 3:10 was written).

:These are just a few examples. I will continue to look for other examples if this does not suffice. Judging by this, I see no reason why the Bible should be an "invalid" source in an argument. (Please know that I am not attempting to say "the Bible is the 'ultimate science book'").

At 11/28/09 04:52 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/27/09 07:26 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Ah, I see what you mean. But isn't the idea of multiple dimensions still finite? If all dimensions incorporated the same time and had no beginning, then time itself must be infinite, and that is not possible. I do understand your line of thinking, however. I think we all agree that there are paradox issues that we may never discover the answer to.

I don't understand why you feel it's impossible for time to be infinite unless I consider that you are one who believes in a "final judgment" when God will come and end existence. Which if that's the case it is no real argument against infinite time because you in no way can prove this judgment is coming or that the story written about it is correct. More on that a little later.

How can we prove the future?

We must also consider that the alternate universe was created outside of time (verifying your argument while not contradicting mine). I hope we all understand eachother's sides of the argument. Creationism focuses on the formation of our world. If you read, the Bible explains that God "hovered over the waters of the Earth". So, the Earth MUST have existed before God made it habitable for us. I assume many of the others on your side overlooked this. That verse must imply that God had created the universe and Earth outside of time before He made them finite. At this point, I personally believe that the cosmos began to expand (because time was now installed into it. The stars could now be in one spot one moment and another the next). This is, of course, only an idea of mine.

Why do you consider the Bible such a legitimate source? The Bible was written by human beings who, while purporting to have spoken to the divine creator of the universe (dubbed "God" or "Yahweh") they cannot in fact PROVE it because there are no other witnesses to their revelation. Further more, there have been numerous books and passages discovered over the centuries that cast Bible stories in different lights. Either it's to explain something more thoroughly, or it completely adds some new aspect to the life of God or Jesus. Why are these not considered definitive as the others? Because human beings DECIDED they weren't definitive or worthy of inclusion. There is a whole other apocalypse out there we know of that was rejected when the Romans voted on the makeup of the so called "New Testament".

Personally, I only trust religious text when they do not contradict with logic and reasoning (I say that fully expecting "supernatural"-related responses). I wouldn't rely so heavily on Biblical facts if it was not written by such a diverse group (40 authors spread out in centuries time and culture). The fact that the Roman Empire acknowledged the crucifixion of Christ (as well as other cultures), the known Gentile nations use the (B.C, A.D system), and that of His followers, 98% were killed for their firm belief that He was resurrected. (The other 2% were either sent into exile or died in hiding). Also, we know that Christ could have only been one of three things: a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. It is hard to argue the stance that He was not crazy. His precise guidance and well thought out teachings never showed signs of insanity or fault. He could not have been a liar mainly because of the perfect train of thought when He taught. Who would keep up a lie for 30-odd years and die for it?

Anyway, before I start ranting, The Bible has also fulfilled 100% of the prophesies so far. It has not made one mistake yet. (There are I think somewhere between 1.8K to 5K finished). Odds and likelihood mean almost everything to me. (That is why I refuse to accept evolution etc...)

It could indeed be, the thing is science doesn't do what religion does. Religion says "This is how it is" and will only change the opinion if a new idea catches enough fire and can really prove itself to be absolutely correct (like the make up of the solar system and what is actually the central component of it: The Sun, rather then The Earth). Science approaches things firstly from the idea of "I don't know the answer...but I want to...how can I find that answer?" So from that you develop techniques, hypothesis, ideas. Then you test them, if they prove to work, you hang onto them and use them in your pursuit of the truth and the answer. If they don't, you say "ooops, oh well, back to the old drawing board" and you discard them and go back to it. Even when you create theories like the Big Bang, Evolution, or others that have become oft repeated and part of the factual landscape the only reason that happens is because you continue to find evidence, techniques, and you test them. If they hold up, you keep them and you keep going down that road.

Do you see the difference here? In religion the idea is "we know the answers, we know the central reason for why everything is how it is...and any new ideas about that must still conform to the central principle" where with science the idea was "we don't know the answers, we want to know them, going back and back to the ultimate answer...and any new ideas or explanations presented must be tested and must stand up on it's own merits and make sense".

Religion aside, I think science should prove itself to the absolute degree without doubt. But, I realize this is nearly impossible. I doubt any true faith can be proven by secular means. I also think it is simply human nature that we happen to dismiss science that claims to have "disproven" something we believe in. (Most of the time, these claims have too many holes to be taken seriously, in which case, I would look deeper into it with less bias).

If you cannot respond to my question without needing some background on my studies, then our argument is void and only proves that you can only rely on what you have learned in school and cannot think for yourself.

I don't understand this point at all. How can one really claim to know anything at all without study, it's also funny how you once again revert to the "indoctrination" argument and forget that religion has a whole centuries old system of indoctrinating it's members into their school of ideas and discouraging them from pursuing anything outside of that. So um...who is the bigger indoctrinator here really?

Yes, but science has become a general decision rather than an individual choice to believe it. Yes, we have the choice, but it is much more difficult to refute secular science (as proven in this thread).

Could someone explain the birth of a star and what it has to do with the Big Bang (if anything)? I'm not attempting to start up a huge debate on this, I just want to see what your answers are.

[I'll look up the sources sometime tonight or tomorrow]