Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/25/09 09:51 PM, LucidCity wrote: Science is not always true.

science is the examination of this world, God's world, it is correct as it strives to be correct in its humble task. either you deny God's ability to create a creature able to examine His world (science) therefore bringing closer to Him, and/or imply that God seeks to mislead us (to test and to mislead are two very different things), and/or that he taunts us with so great a mind that it would lead us from him without our knowing (certainly you must be aware of the fact that there are Christian scientists who believe all they have studied, evolution included, are but other examples of God's glory) and/or that you have achieved an understanding of God complete enough to be boastful and condescending. humility is a virtue my friend, don't forget your place within yourself and without the thoughts of others minds or the workings of God particularly with regards to the final judgment. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters...

At 11/25/09 10:22 PM, LucidCity wrote: You said, "have fun worshipping him you self-righteous cocks." So I take it you haven't and that you don't believe.

if you knew how to read you would be aware that "him" refers to Satan.

At 11/25/09 10:22 PM, LucidCity wrote: The difference is, I have the desire to change

lol THAT'S rich.

Good morals? Yeah right. How about you start with humility? You think you're more knowledgeable about the world than the millions of scientists who have spent billions of hours in the last decades to bring you more material comfort, more education, better medicine and the internet.

They're all brainwashed morons in your eyes with their fancy "believe in geology/evolution/cosmology/astrophysics /chemistry/physics" shenanigans.

It would never occur to you, for instance, that oil takes millions of years to form. The stuff we use for everything, you apparently have a better explanation for where it comes from than everyone else.

You'd never suspect that a nuclear reactor works on the same principles that let us know radiometric dating is accurate. You'll freely let scientists hold on to their crazy "radioactivity" theories when it can shove a warm meal down your gaping maw, but when it comes to changing your mind? No, they must be wrong THEN!

And to top it all off SUPREMELY, you think you have personal knowledge of what the creator of the entire universe thinks. You think YOU, a 17 year-old uneducated nimrod, know what the CREATOR OF ALL KNOWN THINGS wants, based on a book. A book written by people who didn't know what a microbe was or didn't even have a number for "0".

No one is more ARROGANT than religious people, NO ONE.

At 11/25/09 10:30 PM, chcampbell wrote: That being said, that "im such a great person because im christian" bullshit is annoying. It doesnt make you any better of a person, but thinking it does makes you a douch bag.

I agree. I hate it when other Christians sit themselves on a pedestal and say "I'm perfect!"

Simply because I am a Christian doesn't at ALL mean I am a better person (because I'm not). Our only difference is faith and eternity. I will always make mistakes no matter what. Even though I try hard not to, I will still sin just as much as a non-christian. No, being a Christian doesn't make anyone a better person. Please do not place all of us in the same boat.

At 11/25/09 10:37 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/25/09 10:22 PM, LucidCity wrote: The difference is, I have the desire to change

lol THAT'S rich.

Good morals? Yeah right. How about you start with humility? You think you're more knowledgeable about the world than the millions of scientists who have spent billions of hours in the last decades to bring you more material comfort, more education, better medicine and the internet.

They're all brainwashed morons in your eyes with their fancy "believe in geology/evolution/cosmology/astrophysics /chemistry/physics" shenanigans.

It would never occur to you, for instance, that oil takes millions of years to form. The stuff we use for everything, you apparently have a better explanation for where it comes from than everyone else.

You'd never suspect that a nuclear reactor works on the same principles that let us know radiometric dating is accurate. You'll freely let scientists hold on to their crazy "radioactivity" theories when it can shove a warm meal down your gaping maw, but when it comes to changing your mind? No, they must be wrong THEN!

And to top it all off SUPREMELY, you think you have personal knowledge of what the creator of the entire universe thinks. You think YOU, a 17 year-old uneducated nimrod, know what the CREATOR OF ALL KNOWN THINGS wants, based on a book. A book written by people who didn't know what a microbe was or didn't even have a number for "0".

No one is more ARROGANT than religious people, NO ONE.

And you have once again proven yourself to be nothing but rant and insult. Science has been PROVEN WRONG countless times, "sir". Your little god of science has you fooled! The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round before "science" did. The writers of the Bible knew that molecules, bacteria, and planets existed. Oh, but you overlook that right? You can only prove your theory with your theory! "Oil takes a million years to form". Wow. So that number is just an estimate based on other estimates? That's not science, that's idiocy! As for your "millions of scientists studying this", they did the same thing with the geocentric theory. *GASP*!!! Science was wrong for once?!

And the "good morals" I try to uphold is not an example of arrogance, it's an exaple of maturity (something a 24 yr old should have by now). I am NOT perfect. I am nowhere near a good person. I make so many mistakes, but I try my best not to, because I respect God and others. I will NEVER and have never said that I am better than anyone simply because of my faith. And you should quit bashing Christianity to uphold your false theory.

Now, on subject, you said that radiation proves dates, but it actually disproves it. I believe they found a form of it in granite somewhere. I'm not entirely sure about this, so I will try to find the information again so that I don't find myself in another one of your "inaccuracy hellholes".

At 11/25/09 09:48 PM, LucidCity wrote: He does not punish those who ask questions.

He just punishes the ones who didn't get answers to those questions. Which is 100% of atheists..

In the end, however, you will meet a cruel end because you choose not to accept simple forgiveness.

Or chose to ask questions that God wasn't willing to answer?

He died for you and I - eventhough you refuse to accept that. He has enough mercy to give us the OPTION to be saved.

But he's supposed to be the Supreme Good or something. He should have enough the mercy to give us the GUARANTEE to be saved. Giving us the option to go to hell isn't good, y'know.

I hope you have fun in hell though if you choose not to accept Him. Honestly, I do.

...I smell lie.

But, please know that hell was not created for human beings but for Satan and his followers. We were never created to see death, but humanity sinned and was forever scarred.

...By the God that wasn't willing to forgive.

You may be tricked into rejecting God's abundance of love, but He hasn't given up on you. :)

Yeah, he just caused us to think that he doesn't exist, inevitably leading us to go to hell.

At 11/25/09 10:49 PM, LucidCity wrote:
And you have once again proven yourself to be nothing but rant and insult. Science has been PROVEN WRONG countless times, "sir".

Saying science is wrong doesn't really mean anything, and by that I mean that your sentence literally has no meaning science is generally defined as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws", your statement there just makes no grammatical sense.

Your little god of science has you fooled! The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round before "science" did.

God of science, and I know I've heard that before but if your going to bring it up you should throw out the bible passages as "proof".

The writers of the Bible knew that molecules, bacteria, and planets existed.

Again, prove the passages.

Oh, but you overlook that right? You can only prove your theory with your theory!

Which theory(specific or general) is he trying to prove with another theory?

"Oil takes a million years to form". Wow. So that number is just an estimate based on other estimates?

No it's not and unless you bring some real reasons otherwise it's not a point of debate either.

That's not science, that's idiocy! As for your "millions of scientists studying this", they did the same thing with the geocentric theory. *GASP*!!! Science was wrong for once?!

Science is not some fucking guy in an office, it's the compendium of human knowledge.

At 11/25/09 10:41 PM, LucidCity wrote:

I will still sin just as much as a non-christian.

So you're saying that KNOWING YOU'LL GO TO HELL FOR SINNING, you still do it as much as someone WHO THINKS IT DOESN'T MATTER?
Woah.

Science has been PROVEN WRONG countless times

Yeah that's why it's great. It changes with new evidence.
That's why we can make a better car every year. That's why microchips become faster and faster.
That's why we know the age of the universe more precisely every decade.

Science becomes more airtight every year. The more we know, the more certain we become. To prove something wrong 100 years ago was exponentially easier than proving anything wrong today.

And I can assure you that there are things that are so solidly established that they will NOT be proven wrong. The theory of evolution is one of them. Doesn't get stronger than that in science. It's one of the things we're the most certain of.

And all this still leaves you right back to square 1: saying X person has be wrong before doesn't prove he's wrong now.

You still have nothing, and what's even sadder is you don't UNDERSTAND WHY.

The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round before "science" did.

The Greeks knew the earth was round and even calculated its approximate circumference. That was 600-800 years before the Christian bible.

The writers of the Bible knew that molecules, bacteria, and planets existed.

They didn't know about the first 2, I can assure you of that and just about every tribe on the globe knew about planets, some far better than the people who wrote the bible.
The Aztecs for one had a much better calendar and a better understanding on the skies and they sure as shit never heard of Jesus.

I make so many mistakes

Oh, I noticed. And no, you're not trying at all to be a decent person. Just this thread is plenty evidence, You can't write a single post without peppering it with insults.

Just saying " I make mistakes" doesn't count as trying to be a better person.
But hey that's your entire mindset, right? You can do whatever you want all day long, but as long as you ask for "forgiveness" later on or feel bad for what you did, it's a-ok, right?

At 11/25/09 11:18 PM, Latiasneo wrote:

At 11/25/09 09:48 PM, LucidCity wrote: He does not punish those who ask questions.

He just punishes the ones who didn't get answers to those questions. Which is 100% of atheists..

In the end, however, you will meet a cruel end because you choose not to accept simple forgiveness.

Or chose to ask questions that God wasn't willing to answer?

He died for you and I - eventhough you refuse to accept that. He has enough mercy to give us the OPTION to be saved.

But he's supposed to be the Supreme Good or something. He should have enough the mercy to give us the GUARANTEE to be saved. Giving us the option to go to hell isn't good, y'know.

I hope you have fun in hell though if you choose not to accept Him. Honestly, I do.

...I smell lie.

But, please know that hell was not created for human beings but for Satan and his followers. We were never created to see death, but humanity sinned and was forever scarred.

...By the God that wasn't willing to forgive.

You may be tricked into rejecting God's abundance of love, but He hasn't given up on you. :)

Yeah, he just caused us to think that he doesn't exist, inevitably leading us to go to hell.

You've spoken like a true atheist.
ONE: You have the answers, you simply choose not to believe them.
TWO: He does answer the questions, which you so confidently reject. It's called His Word.
THREE: If He forced us to make the choice, it would not be free will and therefore not love.
FOUR: God IS willing to forgive.
FIVE: No, YOU choose to think He doesn't exist. That's not His fault, that's your own!

Anything else you want me to easily clarify? Your assumptions astound me.

Hm why bother....

I did find the link that I had read up on awhile back though if your interested (probably couldn't care less to see the other side of the argument, but whatever).

I'm done arguing with you people if you're just going to shut me down every chance you get. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

http://vodpod.com/watch/2374596-evolutio n-theory-proven-false-by-scientific-obse rvation-science-and-evidence-for-creatio n-1-

Watch it if you are willing to actually have something to argue with science about.

Take care. Pleasure debating :)

At 11/25/09 11:26 PM, LucidCity wrote: You've spoken like a true atheist.

kthx?

ONE: You have the answers, you simply choose not to believe them.

Can you blame me? Just "God did it" isn't a very convincing answer.

TWO: He does answer the questions, which you so confidently reject. It's called His Word.

If you mean the Bible, then the contradictions in it spring up more questions.

THREE: If He forced us to make the choice, it would not be free will and therefore not love.

Or he could make it so that we dont have to make the choice and we all go to heaven.

FOUR: God IS willing to forgive.

"Forever scarred" =/= forgiveness

He didn't forgive Adam and Eve when they sinned.

FIVE: No, YOU choose to think He doesn't exist. That's not His fault, that's your own!

No, I think it because God's doing such a shitty job in convincing me. If he doesn't want me to go to hell, then why isn't he doing a better job?

At 11/25/09 11:35 PM, LucidCity wrote:

http://vodpod.com/watch/2374596-evolutio n-theory-proven-false-by-scientific-obse rvation-science-and-evidence-for-creatio n-1-

Oh that old chesnut ( and I mean OLD )

refuted here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos /gentry.html

Points against him:
1- His samples do NOT come from the "primordial rock" which he claims they come from.

2-The association of concentric colored haloes with polonium is actually speculative

3 -There are missing halos that should be present if his theory is correct ( i.e. more commons elements that, according to his theory, would leave traces in the same manner but aren't observed)

4- He has no way of proving the halos, even IF they can be produced by polonium's alpha particles, actually come from polonium

5- His hypothesis doesn't match up with other dating methods that use radioactivity, for which he postulates a varying decay rate of all other elements but polonium over time. The acceleration rate needed to maintain his hypothesis of a 6000-10 000 year earth would mean that the isotopes would release all their energy in that time span rather than the many billions of years it took them, which would have kept the earth a molten wasteland that would have looked more like the sun.

6- There are hundreds of non-radiometric ways to know the earth is far older than 6000 ( or 10 000 or 100 000 ) years old.

In closing:
"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science."

I love all the contradictions I see here:

God is love and Mercy and doesn't punish us for asking questions. Um, did we not read Genesis? God specifically said to Adam and Eve "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge" he specifically said to them "be fucking ignorant and obedient little toys for me to play with and all will be well". When they didn't listen? "You're out of here, you'll get sick, you'll get hurt, you'll die, you'll suffer....why? Because you made daddy angry". Oh that's love and perfection right there. Why the fuck does nobody deal with this? Oh right, inconvenient to the belief system.

Also I've said I don't know how many times the Bible as word of God argument is false as fuck. Look, the New Testament alone was written by many different hands, and then there was a VOTE by MEN to determine it's authenticity...how in the hell does that make it the official word of God? Seems to me that just makes it the official word of the Church hierarchy looking to tell you what to do.

Oh, and lastly...please please stop trying to call people "evolutionists" like you're called "creationists". This proves you don't even understand the basic concept of evolution because it is only a PART of the overall tapestry of how science believes life has come to be. It's like taking out a history book on America and acting like you can just study the Revolutionary War from start to finish and go "well, that's all I need to know about the formation of America". Um, no, no it isn't. Important as hell? Without question, but it is still part of a whole. Whereas Creationism DOES work in the "it's all I need to know" context because Creationism explains everything as "God made it/did it/allowed it to be". So to approach this argument like there are "evolutionists" and "creationists undermines the credibility of anything else you have to say because as I said...it proves you fundamentally don't understand the theory of evolution and how it relates (and doesn't relate) to the explanation for the existence of life.

Thanks muchly for the entertainment up to now.

Guys guys guys! Stop picking out little specifications and ranting about them!

At 11/25/09 11:35 PM, LucidCity wrote: http://vodpod.com/watch/2374596-evolutio n-theory-proven-false-by-scientific-obse rvation-science-and-evidence-for-creatio n-1-

Watch it if you are willing to actually have something to argue with science about.

If you want to have an actual debate involving science, you need to be willing ot be critical of your own ideas. If you'd spent a few minutes looking, you would have found at least two solid debunkings of Gentry's Po halo ideas.

If you'd watched your own video, you would have also seen Gentry looking through an optical microscope and writing down "Po-218" in his lab book, which should be a tip-off that the whole thing is crap anyway.

At 11/25/09 05:28 PM, amaterasu wrote:
I agree with you there, but you have to admit for every theist attempting to manipulate science in favor of religion, there is some atheist using scientific knowledge to foolishly attempt to disprove the existence of a god or anything supernatural for that matter. It's foolish on both sides, since all they are doing is pseudo-arguing - both sides are arguing with their opinions. But sadly, each side will always need a reason to feel better than the other, so the cycle goes on and on and on.

Perhaps that's true, but misguided atheists trying to disprove the existence of a god do a lot less harm to the world than theists using science to back up their religious texts.

At 11/26/09 08:18 AM, Elfer wrote: you need to be willing ot be critical of your own ideas.

Oh this is an easy one.

LucidCity will be critical of his own ideas when you guys are critical of your own ideas.

Amiright LucidCity?

At 11/23/09 12:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Not directly insofar as he wasn't there to impregnate their mothers and they come from his seed, but when we talk about something like this on an omniscient, omnipotent being, we probably have to redefine the word "directly".

Well, I would define "directly" by saying something that happens naturally or something that is beyond society or an individual's control. Doing bad things is under an individual's control.

This is what I can't get my head around. That behavior does NOT meet the definition of the word "love" in any way shape or form. You don't let something you love get shit on and killed.

When I say "love" I think that God has a higher plan for us all and he loves us by allowing us to live on this Earth and embrace all of the wonderful things there are. Simply being alive with free will is love.

I suggest you remember those teachings about "the high road" "setting an example" and "the golden rule" going forward here. There's a lot of people with superiority complexes on both sides of the debate.

Well, yes, I am not trying to say that any side was better or worse than the other. I was just trying to present my view of being on one side but not having a superiority complex.

At 11/25/09 11:35 PM, LucidCity wrote: http://vodpod.com/watch/2374596-evolutio n-theory-proven-false-by-scientific-obse rvation-science-and-evidence-for-creatio n-1-

sorry buddy, but since science isn't always correct why would you trust science to disprove science? they probably forgot to carry the zero or something; you should know that.

At 11/26/09 11:47 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: Perhaps that's true, but misguided atheists trying to disprove the existence of a god do a lot less harm to the world than theists using science to back up their religious texts.

Atheists readily accept that it is impossible to disprove god.

At 11/26/09 01:16 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 11/26/09 11:47 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: Perhaps that's true, but misguided atheists trying to disprove the existence of a god do a lot less harm to the world than theists using science to back up their religious texts.

Atheists readily accept that it is impossible to disprove god.

Right, it's up to the believers to prove him, I can currently see no pink unicorns anywhere so if someone wants to tell me they exist they better have some proof.

I personally don't trust scientists who don't agree with the following people:

- The leader of my political party
- my dad
- my local religious authority
- my friends who saw ghosts / Jesus
- 11th century biblical scholars
- My favorite high school teacher
- Leech applicators
- Werewolf hunters

At 11/26/09 12:17 PM, Ericho wrote: Well, I would define "directly" by saying something that happens naturally or something that is beyond society or an individual's control. Doing bad things is under an individual's control.

Just like it's under God the programmer of humanity's control to have edited that bit out. Since God has absolute control over absolutely everything, it isn't just that he ALLOWS evil or badness, he fucking INVENTED it. Why is this so hard to understand? Because it can't rationally be reconciled with the loving God idea?

When I say "love" I think that God has a higher plan for us all and he loves us by allowing us to live on this Earth and embrace all of the wonderful things there are. Simply being alive with free will is love.

No it isn't, go look up the definition of love in the dictionary. It is defined as "wanting what is best for the person" to have actively introduced evil and horror and pain and murder does not institute love. Especially since the Bible has all those numerous instances (including Genesis) where God flat out introduces these things as temper tantrums basically because humanity didn't do what they were told.

Well, yes, I am not trying to say that any side was better or worse than the other. I was just trying to present my view of being on one side but not having a superiority complex.

Except for all the times as Bach pointed out where you absolutely DO have a superiority complex and make it clear you believe atheists don't have morality and are wrong because only a theist who has God to be afraid of and listen to can truly be moral and good and right. You've said these things so unless you'd like to right now retract them and never ever say such things again...hypocricy.

At 11/26/09 02:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Just like it's under God the programmer of humanity's control to have edited that bit out.

fuck bitching about god not making us good; i want to know why an omnipotent and good being allowed the creation/existence of evil incarnate. the devil pops up in genesis with no mention of how, fucks with gods shit and then is forced to suffer by tempting humans outside of paradise.
where did it come from? did god make it? is it co-eternal with god? did something else make it?

At 11/26/09 01:16 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 11/26/09 11:47 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: Perhaps that's true, but misguided atheists trying to disprove the existence of a god do a lot less harm to the world than theists using science to back up their religious texts.

Atheists readily accept that it is impossible to disprove god.

That's why I said 'misguided' atheists. Of course it's impossible to prove a negative.

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Any other questions?

Any answers?

I shall answer your questions:

1) The only reason believe that it's Adam and Eve is because Science hasn't actually properly PROVED that is WASN'T Adam and Eve, so people need something to believe that no one has proven wrong yet.

2) It's been proved it's the Big Bang Theory, as far as I know.

3) Most likely. If science comes up with a bunch of convoluted and confounded ways of how earth and all manifestations of earth were created that are RIGHT, religion is gonna have a fit. literally. Religion relies on the basis of people believing in it, and like was said in the second post (one underneath that first), no one like to be told their wrong, so they'll most likely come up with something like "They're lying!" and continue spouting rubbish about how great 'God' is.

However, I don't suppose anyone here actually thinks that this 'God' created Earth? There is no god, end of.

Exactly how do you validate the Big Bang theory?

At 11/26/09 04:45 PM, flailthefox wrote: 1) The only reason believe that it's Adam and Eve is because Science hasn't actually properly PROVED that is WASN'T Adam and Eve, so people need something to believe that no one has proven wrong yet.

inbreeding hasn't proven that wrong?

2) It's been proved it's the Big Bang Theory, as far as I know.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE LAITY, I AM ABOUT TO PRESENT YOU WITH SOME VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION;
THEORY (IN SCIENTIFIC USAGE): a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

IN SCIENCE IT DOES NOT MEAN THIS: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3) Most likely. If science comes up with a bunch of convoluted and confounded ways of how earth and all manifestations of earth were created that are RIGHT, religion is gonna have a fit.

you mean the way it is now?

At 11/26/09 05:47 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Exactly how do you validate the Big Bang theory?

By reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang