Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|>|>>
| Author | May 21, 2011-End Of The World? |
|---|
Apparently the scientific community was not so gullible. Although the religious communities have continued to rely on these, even to this day.
Really? Dont you mean the scientific community has continued to rely on that?
Yes, I can even post a debate in which one from your side was embarrassed by the Christians for STILL using the 100 year old fraud in his textbook as proof of evolution.
Would you care to see it? lol
We both know you are not sincere so I am spending not much time with you or your friend. Why would I? On the other hand, I am spending plenty of time in PMs with many Christians on this site who thanked me for providing some insight. They also LOVED the Exodus documentary I posted.
At the end of the day, that makes it all worth my time.
It reminds me of old Rome, where they once bowed to Caesar and Nero and killed Christians named Matthew and Peter. Now we name our sons Matthew and Peter and call our dogs Nero and Caesar. Ironic, isn't it? | So I take you *still* can't refute the Genesis contradiction?
And why does the alleged discovery of Mount Sinai "prove" the existence of Moses?
Does the existence of Buddha's Footsteps prove the existence of Buddha? Surely it meets the same criteria that you are using.
Same goes for Mount Olympus proving the existence of Zeus and the greek pantheon.
Unanswered blasts from the past.
I think I have answered these "questions" with simple logic. Your "proof" is equally valid to "prove" the basis of other religions. Please refute the "truth" of all other religions to leave yours as the only one standing. After all, yours is the only "true god" is it not. So of course refuting the others should be a simple exercise?
Care to explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible
But of course Modi will not explain. Because providing an explanation only provides additional opportunities to find an ever increasing multitude of problems. That's why religious groups are more focused on attacking and not providing convincing evidence. Why not give *us* some answers Modi?
Back On Topic
There are a multitude of other possible, plausible "End of the World" scenarios. Rogue planets, Rogue Asteroids/Comet, exceptionally strong Solar Flares, even nearby Supernovae which could essentially irradiate the Earth of most lifeforms.
As dziadu has linked before, the scientific community has been observing the Sun for many decades. It *appears* that the Sun is stable enough for this not to be an issue. With the Hubble Telescope and so many other observatories it is unlikely that we will have a Comet/Asteroid approach us without *some* warning, probably decades worth, if not more. From observation there are no nearby Stars that are likely to supernovae in less than a million years.
It would seem that stellar sources of the "End of the World" aren't likely to happen in any current human lifetime.
Have Fun
Grunge | https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1901925
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1902020
See, two recent topics where the same sort of nonsense goes on. Getting banned over a simple thread about lead miniatures?
This is among a LONG list of ruined threads covering various topics with the same two players, sometimes alone, sometimes together.
Add to the above both my Tavern threads, and my ethics thread and we can clearly see these two are not sincere and do not deserve even the small amount of time I already have graciously given.
I rest my case. | https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1899419
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1897020
Et tu, brute? At least I am providing some actual attention to the issue at hand here. Something you have steadfastly ignored in pressing your own agenda. Need I remind you that you introduced religion to this topic (post # 9, 54, etc)?
In regards Anthony Flew, you seem to be implying that he supports your point of view. Far from it in fact.
In a December 2004 interview he said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew
Also of interest to anyone on this subject -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Failed again on claiming that others have failed?
Unfortunately, as is well established, Modi can continue to bring up issues that he believes cast doubt on the skeptical point of view Ad Infinitum (Argument from Ignorance) simply because the body of human knowledge is not infinite.
Essentially, Theists claim that lack of proof of the existence of a Deity equates to proof of his/her/it's existence. Skeptics don't actually make any such claim. At best they can point out flaws in the "proof" of existing religions and maintain that, as yet, there is no proof *for* the existence of a Deity of *any* creed. I see no change to this position from the lack of evidence in Modi's non-presentations.
Back on Topic (Remember this?)
There have on occasion been concerns regarding the "End of the World" from scientific projects. Many claimed the Large Hadron Collider in Cern could cause such an event. These concerns were studied and found to be unlikely at the time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_hadron_collider)
There were also such concerns when the first Atomic Bomb was detonated. It was believed by some that the power of the explosion could conceivably ignite the Atmosphere. It was shown to be highly unlikely, if not impossible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project)
Have Fun
Grunge | for Grunge:
Yawn. Please do continue to show the forum your obsession with me.
It matters not what thread I post on, you and/or Fishy will take the contrary view or flame it as you did the lead mini thread.
Seek help son.
As for continuing to prove my original point by using the fraudulent community links concerning Exodus and the Bible, thanks. You just can't seem to grasp that you agree with me.
I'm sorry if the Jews came back to Israel as the Bible predicted but they did and this time they are armed to defend themselves. Praise God for his wonderful prophetic word :) | None of this happened either. Bwahahahaha too funny. Nighty night :)
Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the Lord your God.
Ezekiel 37:10-14
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet--a vast army. Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, `Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' Therefore prophesy and say to them: `This is what the Sovereign Lord says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.'"
Isaiah 66:7-8
"Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children."
Ezekiel 37:21-22
and say to them, `This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.
Jeremiah 16:14-15
"However, the days are coming," declares the Lord, "when men will no longer say, `As surely as the Lord lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt,' but they will say, `As surely as the Lord lives, who brought the Israelites up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them.' For I will restore them to the land I gave their forefathers.
Ezekiel 34:13
I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land.
Jeremiah 31:10
"Hear the word of the Lord, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: `He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.'
Deuteronomy 30:3-5
then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers | In fact, the whole point of this thread, the Rapture, includes Israel's conversion to Christ.
The Old Testament prophecy clearly states that he will be REJECTED by Israel. Thanks for playing
Later -
I'm sorry if the Jews came back to Israel as the Bible predicted but they did and this time they are armed to defend themselves. Praise God for his wonderful prophetic word :)
I'm fairly sure that the Jewish state of Israel has no intention of converting to Christianity. So which team do you play for again? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether you are playing for the Jewish team or the Christian one? Your profile says Long live Israel!, a Jewish state yet you seem to be trying to put yourself on the Christian team too. Unfortunately the two ultimately are incompatible. Perhaps you are trying to keep your options open because you can't make up your mind?
I've answered several of your claims against skepticism of religion. You don't seem to have reciprocated. Is it because you are unable to?
So I take you *still* can't refute the Genesis contradiction?
And why does the alleged discovery of Mount Sinai "prove" the existence of Moses?
Does the existence of Buddha's Footsteps prove the existence of Buddha? Surely it meets the same criteria that you are using.
Same goes for Mount Olympus proving the existence of Zeus and the greek pantheon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible
Back On Topic
"World War Three" has frequently been presented as another possible source of the end of the World. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_three). Particularly the Cuban Missile Crisis was a prime example of such concerns. See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare.
Have Fun
Grunge | Prophecy is a joke. The original part of this thread, we are laughing because he was proven wrong. He fails the basic prophet rule. Make it vague enough that you can never be proven wrong. He put down a date. Foolish.
Even Modi's selection. I can show an error, easily. Ezekial 37:21-22. I thought Israel was a democracy. No "one king".
The Isaiah 66:7-8. By the stroke of a pen, Yugoslavia was created. Iran And Iraq, most of the African nations, when the colonial powers drew the borders. One day there wasn't a nation, the next there was. Israle was not made in a day. There was a lot more planning and work involved than a day of fighting.
Also Ezekail 37:10-14, is that telling us about Zombie apocalypse movies? I haven't seen people coming out of graves. | Can someone please tell Mr science that Wiki is not a credible source?
"However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may not be considered acceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible source."
In other words, you are leaning quite heavily on something that can't even be used. On the other hand, the Bible has been proven the only written source of much history that has been unearthed, making it a solid and dependable book.
Thanks for playing :P |
Even Modi's selection. I can show an error, easily. Ezekial 37:21-22. I thought Israel was a democracy. No "one king".
Silly boy, the king mentioned is the Messiah to come. You know, the guy who appears after the world tries to force the division of Jerusalem. You know, what they are currently working on in the UN?
The Isaiah 66:7-8. By the stroke of a pen, Yugoslavia was created. Iran And Iraq, most of the African nations, when the colonial powers drew the borders. One day there wasn't a nation, the next there was. Israle was not made in a day. There was a lot more planning and work involved than a day of fighting.
Again, the world recognized Israel in one day and for that matter it troubled the enemy so much , 5 nations attacked within hours but lost.
There are no ancient prophesies about Iraq or any other nation being dispersed only to return after many ages.
Indeed Israel was reborn in one day. Tough luck to the haters :P | http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Israel+at+50/The+State+of+Israel+Is+Born.htm
Boy, Israel's rebirth sure did make headlines around the world. :) | And you are once again shown to cherry pick. When shown the prophecy you were saying had come true had a huge error, "oh wait, that will happen later". Glad you've validated my comment on the need for prophecies to be vague, and them needing weird interpretations.
What is the interpretation of the zombie apocalyse once? You were suggesting that had come true, and I haven't seen zombies lately, so there must be some weird interpreatation and it is an allegory or sometihng.
In regards to science changing their mind, that's the beauty of science, they can. Something is found, they look at, it and using the best tools available, make their best deduction about it. Sometimes it's not correct.
The problem is, your book is meant to be the word of the all knowing, all powerful god, so it can't be wrong. That's why there's such problems when it is. An example? Helliocentric? Galileo Heresy? | for Barbarian-Fishy:
Let me break it down for you. You have a journal. You get married and have a son with your wife.
Your journal entry says:
" I am so happy! I have a son! I will teach him to hunt and fish. I will pay for the best education. I will give him my home in France and all I own."
Now the son reads the journal at 7 years of age. Man is he pissed! Dad never taught him how to hunt, dad never gave him money for school and surely dad never gave him his home in France. Dad is a LIAR!
No, dad isnt a liar. The boy is too young to hunt as he agreed with his wife he wouldnt teach him until the age of 13. He set up a fund for his education that will be paid for by the time he goes to Uni. He has willed him his home in France.
See son, I make it simple for the simple. Thank me later. | for Barbarian-Fishy:
I believe Jesus existed,[...] and I don't believe he died and was resurrected.
What do you think about Paul's conversion? | The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
Comment:
Man is the creature who does not accept and regards it as actually impossible that anything devised by himself of his fellow creatures, could exist without an artificer.
Unfortunately, however, there are some people who think and accept that this entire exposed and hidden universe can exist without an Artificer.
Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability.
The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
10000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
10 00000000000000000000000000000000
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.
References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
Article adoped from The Equilibrium in the Explosion, | You mean the article you copied from here (http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse03.htm) is acceptable but Wikipedia isn't?
Interesting that you take information from a Islamic "Intelligent Design" Website. Perhaps you are seeking "automatic" opposition so you can ridicule Islam? Desperation makes for strange bedfellows, I guess. Not that it matters to me. Islam is just as implausible, in my opinion, as any other religion.
Also, videos from YouTube provide "facts" and "evidence" but an online encyclopedia (which includes genuine real-life references) doesn't?
Again, your basis for what is "fact" and "evidence" is interesting.
Back On Topic
For a while it was thought by some that the Y2K bug could cause the "End of the World". The supposition was that the computers controlling the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers could malfunction and fire. Of course the opposition would respond in kind and the world would end in nuclear fire.
Of course the computers had been tested to ensure that no such thing would happen. It is also likely that many computer systems were temporarily isolated from the nuclear launch system, just as a precaution (although this is last is merely idle speculation on my part).
Have Fun
Grunge | Oh, I do apologise. It appears that particular article is featured on multiple "Intelligent Design" and "Creationist" Websites (http://www.designanduniverse.com/articles/the_equilibrium_in_the_explosion.php - http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted/the%20creation%20of%20the%20universe/The%20Equili brium%20in%20the%20Explosion.htm), not just the Islamic one. It's good to see that such diametrically opposed religions can get on so well together when they need to shore up each others flagging position.
This has been a minor correction of a previous post. I don't believe a "Back on Topic" post is strictly required.
Thanks for your attention.
Grunge | for Grunge:
Mr. Wiki. I will pull out stuff from any source because you continually use Wiki. Notice the article was posted AFTER I blasted you for leaning on Wiki, but that went straight over your head.
Also, visual evidence that the whole world can view is indeed "putting it out there."
ON Wiki, some dope can deface any page and have it not detected for years, while researchers are duped thinking it is fact.
My son was in elementary school when he was told he could not use Wiki for research papers. Really Grunge. I'm gonna call you Mr Wiki from now on.
Also, you don't seem to notice that your nick is already included in each of your posts. I think I know why you add it though. Its your little smug way of praising your own writing.
Ta ta Mr Wiki. | Neither of you dropped by to post a gratz on my thread about Israel's 63 birthday. Now why is that I wonder?
You avoided that like the plague. lol
Ill will perhaps? No? Maybe next year? Waiting until after the Rapture? All of the above? | Also, visual evidence that the whole world can view is indeed "putting it out there."
Surely you have heard of Video Editing? It's been around for a very long time. So your "visual evidence" is no guarantee of evidential quality information.
Regarding Wikipedia as a credible source, you forgot some key information in your reference.
Wikipedia is not a credible source for purposes of *college students* or for *research*. But then again neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica or many other "reference books".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/
http://teachinghistory.org/digital-classroom/ask-a-digital-historian/23863
http://www.connorsstate.edu/page.php?dept=disted&p=disted-wiki
and, of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use
Also it is important to note the definition of credibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility :P
Back On Topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
Have Fun
Grunge |
<<|<|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|>|>>Back to topics list
|
