Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:You are disqualified based on Moses' law.

Which one? The one about stealing another man's goat or the one about serving milk and meat together on the same plate?

StiffMittens wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:You are disqualified based on Moses' law.

Which one? The one about stealing another man's goat or the one about serving milk and meat together on the same plate?

So creamed chipped beef is a sin?

MeDeFe wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:You are disqualified based on Moses' law.

Is it comparable to Godwin's or Sturgeon's Law?

Yeah, Godwin's.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Facts are only that which has been proven. If you cannot prove it, it is not a fact.

And wouldn't you know evolution falls into this category.


The problem is I do not put as much faith into science as you. [b]Science, after all, is man. And we have tons of examples of how inept man is[/b]. Let's look at one specific area within science that indicates that the reliability of science should always be questioned.

Global warming. Now,(1) there are scientists who say it is real and man made, and (2)there are scientists who say it is real but man had nothing to do with it, and (3)then there are scientists who say GW is bunk, that it is a cycle, and we can't prevent it.

I'll take curtain #3.

Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

Right and fishermen are habitual exaggeraters.

StiffMittens wrote:

neanderpaul14 wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

Right and fishermen are habitual exaggeraters.

Also they were out in the hot desert sun all day pounding down jugs of wine.

StiffMittens wrote:

neanderpaul14 wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

Right and fishermen are habitual exaggeraters.

The messiah that got away. by A. Fisher
"Yeah, he walked on water. and he totally came back from the dead. And he, like fed hundreds of people with a coupla fish. And he brought this other guy back from the dead...."

jonesthecurl wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

neanderpaul14 wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

Right and fishermen are habitual exaggeraters.

The messiah that got away. by A. Fisher
"Yeah, he walked on water. and he totally came back from the dead. And he, like fed hundreds of people with a coupla fish. And he brought this other guy back from the dead...."

As a life long construction worker let me just say that one of favorite hobbies, and my co-workers as well, has been to make up all sorts of crazy sh*t and see who we can get to believe it. The new guys are always fun to mess with.

jonesthecurl wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

neanderpaul14 wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

Right and fishermen are habitual exaggeraters.

The messiah that got away. by A. Fisher
"Yeah, he walked on water. and he totally came back from the dead. And he, like fed hundreds of people with a coupla fish. And he brought this other guy back from the dead...."

They wrote down what God wanted written down. I don't think that leaves room for exaggeration nor error.


But you either believe or you don't. Not like God's going to have a hard time figuring out which group you belong to.

jay_a2j wrote:But you either believe or you don't. Not like God's going to have a hard time figuring out which group you belong to.

Why are you so proud to believe in a God that leads by fear and intimidation?

Don't you see the hypocrisy of how you believe God to be and how he is described in the Bible? A fair and just God would not punish people just because they came to the conclusion that they did not believe in his existence. That is not evil. That is just a conclusion at the end of a thought process.

You've been misled and you aren't using your God-given common sense.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Facts are only that which has been proven. If you cannot prove it, it is not a fact.

And wouldn't you know evolution falls into this category.


The problem is I do not put as much faith into science as you. Science, after all, is man. And we have tons of examples of how inept man is. Let's look at one specific area within science that indicates that the reliability of science should always be questioned.

Global warming. Now,(1) there are scientists who say it is real and man made, and (2)there are scientists who say it is real but man had nothing to do with it, and (3)then there are scientists who say GW is bunk, that it is a cycle, and we can't prevent it.

I'll take curtain #3.

Except, jay the one thing that all those ideas have in common is that the scientists putting them forward will fully acknowledge that they are not 100% sure. Some are more sure than others.

What we do know about climate change is that the overall Earth's temperature is rising and human actions are almost certainly contributing to the problem (note I did not say absolutely certain). Even if it is 100% natural, that does not mean humans are incapable of changing it. A flood is 100% natural, but we can construct dams and marshes to mitigate or prevent damage.

Now, how did you know that there were all these questins? Because scientists, through the media, have presented the information for people to see. Many of the biggest errors are really not due to scientists at all, but to media exaggerations and distortions. In many cases, a study will be presented couched in all kinds of qualifiers. If a study that says "heart patients who have allergies to milk are still allergic after surgery and still needed to take care to avoid milk" gets translated into "heart patients need to avoid milk", its not the fault of the science, its the media translation. Sometimes this even happens in a mild way when one scientist cites another's study (though usually those errors are caught). This is just one reason why you have to fo back to original sources and publications, not just rely on what others say of the studies.

You have made it clear that you are not even going to examine what you think you know about Evolution and Creation. That pretty much speaks for itself. I don't think anyone here is really suggesting you should simply take our word that Evolution has evidence, is likely true. We say you should look at the evidence and not simply trust those who have told you the evidence is not there or is wrong.

Sometimes the majority really is correct!

Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

Good night xelabale

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

It's like my sister says..."The Bible says God exists, so he does". I wish I were joking.

Woodruff wrote:

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

It's like my sister says..."The Bible says God exists, so he does". I wish I were joking.

haha that sounds just like mine!

Woodruff wrote:

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

It's like my sister says..."The Bible says God exists, so he does". I wish I were joking.

She must believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Good for her!

jay_a2j wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

neanderpaul14 wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:
Strange that you pin so much faith on a book written by men....especially given that the editors were all Catholic

Let's not forget this book is filled with stories that were told by fishermen and carpenters. Carpenters = construction workers, there's a real reliable bunch who would never make up stories just to mess with people.

Right and fishermen are habitual exaggeraters.

The messiah that got away. by A. Fisher
"Yeah, he walked on water. and he totally came back from the dead. And he, like fed hundreds of people with a coupla fish. And he brought this other guy back from the dead...."

They wrote down what God wanted written down. I don't think that leaves room for exaggeration nor error.


But you either believe or you don't. Not like God's going to have a hard time figuring out which group you belong to.

Thats a fact is it Jay.............

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

You, Sir, are brilliant.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Facts are only that which has been proven. If you cannot prove it, it is not a fact.

And wouldn't you know evolution falls into this category.


The problem is I do not put as much faith into science as you. Science, after all, is man. And we have tons of examples of how inept man is. Let's look at one specific area within science that indicates that the reliability of science should always be questioned.

Global warming. Now,(1) there are scientists who say it is real and man made, and (2)there are scientists who say it is real but man had nothing to do with it, and (3)then there are scientists who say GW is bunk, that it is a cycle, and we can't prevent it.

I'll take curtain #3.

You still haven't explained why you think we're not certain that the earth has a solid core. I asked that but you ignored it.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: Facts are only that which has been proven. If you cannot prove it, it is not a fact.

And wouldn't you know evolution falls into this category.

The problem is I do not put as much faith into science as you. Science, after all, is man. And we have tons of examples of how inept man is. Let's look at one specific area within science that indicates that the reliability of science should always be questioned.

Global warming. Now,(1) there are scientists who say it is real and man made, and (2)there are scientists who say it is real but man had nothing to do with it, and (3)then there are scientists who say GW is bunk, that it is a cycle, and we can't prevent it.

I'll take curtain #3.

The reliability of science should always be questioned.

Why do you take curtain [sic] #3? You believe those scientists? Do they have better evidence or does their idea fit better into your preconceptions?

Why is it not okay to question faith as an alternative?

Snorri1234 wrote:You still haven't explained why you think we're not certain that the earth has a solid core. I asked that but you ignored it.

Who has been there? I know there is a tootsie center in the center of a tootsie pop because I have been there. How do they know without seeing it? And another question that always bugged me is how do they know dinosaurs were reptiles and not mammals? Why not giant hairy beasts?

xelabale wrote:
The reliability of science should always be questioned.

Why do you take curtain [sic] #3? You believe those scientists? Do they have better evidence or does their idea fit better into your preconceptions?

Why is it not okay to question faith as an alternative?

I believe the John Stossel report on global warming. If I can find it, I'll post it. You can question faith, go right ahead.



Global Warming Debunked

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

Wow can't argue with that. Hey xela ever heard the saying: "It is better to remain silent and be thought the fool, than to open one's mouth (or begin typing in your case) and remove all doubt"?

jay_a2j wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:You still haven't explained why you think we're not certain that the earth has a solid core. I asked that but you ignored it.

Who has been there? I know there is a tootsie center in the center of a tootsie pop because I have been there. How do they know without seeing it?

Have you ever seen radiowaves? Or molecules? Or virii?

We know the earth has a solid core because we've been sending waves into the earth and measuring how they bounce back. Seismology is really not that hard of a thing to understand, or at least get the gist of. It's the same proccess we use to detect landmines. The landmines are denser than the earth surrounding it, so they bounce back more waves. The core is denser than the earth surrounding it, so it bounces back more waves.

I mean, we've gotten to the point that we can basically tell what it's made off by observing the seismic waves. (It's mostly iron and some nickel, since denser materials would bounce back more.) We've even found out that the core might be rotating on a different speed than the crust.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

xelabale wrote:Look it's simple. God is a fact. Thus, the proof of God is that God is a fact. If there was no God it wouldn't be a fact, but in fact God is a fact. If God wasn't a fact, it wouldn't be a fact, but that's not factual. When you factor in the fact that Jesus was in fact God's son there's yet more facts to factor in. If you want and it doesn't infract the rules I'll fax the facts to you.

Thus have I proved that God exists and ye who doubt might be smited in spite of their might. Good night.

Wow can't argue with that. Hey xela ever heard the saying: "It is better to remain silent and be thought the fool, than to open one's mouth (or begin typing in your case) and remove all doubt"?

I think xela was parodying KLOBBER in that post, paul.