shickingbrits wrote:Decided upon and followed through.
So the attempted drowning of an infant is just a celestial insurance policy(assuming you are following the right religion, and not heading to hell)
Moderator: Community Team
shickingbrits wrote:Decided upon and followed through.
jonesthecurl wrote:And I ask again, "Where did your god's morals come from?"
shickingbrits wrote:Jones
Do you think there are morals in E=mc^2? Or in a rock? These are some aspects of God. The universe being God does not confer morals on to the universe, but the people living within it.
shickingbrits wrote:Jones
Do you think there are morals in E=mc^2? Or in a rock? These are some aspects of God. The universe being God does not confer morals on to the universe, but the people living within it.
shickingbrits wrote:Lootifer,
A homosexual should be approached just as heterosexual is. Do onto others as you would have them do o to you. I certainly wouldn't want anyone hating on me because I love women.
Would I call a homosexual gay or fag? Sure, if they were calling me that. Which is actually quite common. Would I call a non-homosexual gay or fag? If they were representing the non-homosexual meanings of the term.
I once called Arron Brookes brother n***a. I didn't mean it in the negative sense, but as friend, amigo, and that's how he took it. He could have taken it any way he wanted, but that would have been taking it not as it was meant.
jonesthecurl wrote:shickingbrits wrote:Jones
Do you think there are morals in E=mc^2? Or in a rock? These are some aspects of God. The universe being God does not confer morals on to the universe, but the people living within it.
Morals are human. Yes.
universalchiro wrote:@degaston: whatever dude you win, you have it all figured out. You have out smarted even God.
Army of GOD wrote:why do you guys keep humoring shickingbrits?
Army of GOD wrote:why do you guys keep humoring shickingbrits?
he's a troll, just let him baste in his own trollery
shickingbrits wrote:I enjoy how people don't actual argue valid points but just go straight to conclusions:
"The creationists are a bit like contortionists with their arguments and I enjoy their struggle to fit into a small area."
-TG
See the way logic works is first you must display some, for example you take a point or example in which I did such an act and then you get to come to the conclusion. But it would seem that atheist struggle with a line of reasoning, detecting a jump in logic and reaching valid conclusions. i.e. I haven't been squirming and yet I'm genuine.
shickingbrits wrote:I enjoy how people don't actual argue valid points but just go straight to conclusions:
See the way logic works is first you must display some, for example you take a point or example in which I did such an act and then you get to come to the conclusion. But it would seem that atheist struggle with a line of reasoning, detecting a jump in logic and reaching valid conclusions. i.e. I haven't been squirming and yet I'm genuine.
shickingbrits wrote:I have never claimed anything is wrong with the evidence for evolution, I claimed that the evidence for evolution is evidence towards God, being that God is everything and therefore anything which is discovered is an aspect of God. What I do deny is that evolution in any way deters from God, it is just the manifestation of his plan.
God is nothing, therefore nothing which is discovered is an aspect of God.
shickingbrits wrote:So when you give me the basic unit of climate change, warming per measure of CO2, I'll reply to your further posts.
degaston wrote:I'm not saying that evolution disproves God, but it does disprove the Bible as an inerrant source of literal truth. (Actually, the Bible disproves itself through its own numerous self-contradictions.) I suppose that it could still be the literal word of God, but in that case, God was lying, and why anyone would want to follow a God who lies is beyond me. But I think the more reasonable conclusion is that it is just a collection of stories made up and passed down by ordinary, fallible humans who may have had good intentions about creating a well-ordered society, but did not know a thing about science.
The earliest written flood myth is found in the Mesopotamian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian version, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written ancient Mesopotamian story of The Great Flood, and that the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia. The Encyclopedia Judaica adds that there is a strong suggestion thatan intermediate agent was active. The people most likely to have fulfilled this role are the Hurrians, whose territory included the city of Haran, where the Patriarch Abraham had his roots. The Hurrians inherited the Flood story from Babylonia.
Metsfanmax wrote:About 2-3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. We've known that since about 1900. What's next?
Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm.
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era ...
tzor wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:About 2-3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. We've known that since about 1900. What's next?
"Doubling?" Oh I do like this one. Those words left unspoken (or unwritten). You mean the doubling of the man made emissions of CO2, right?
Because we have never doubled the CO2 content in the atmosphere. And we are currently in no position to do so.Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm.
So unless you take the lowest point in all of known history, it's not a doubling and certainly not a doubling since the recent centuries.
Metsfanmax wrote:About 2-3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. We've known that since about 1900. What's next?
Metsfanmax wrote:We are absolutely in a position to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The pre-industrial concentration was about 280 ppm. The current concentration is about 400 ppm, a 40% increase. A typical 'worst-case' scenario -- where significant action on climate change is not taken by the global community -- involves the concentration reaching something like 1000 ppm by the end of the century, which is more than tripling the concentration.
tzor wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:About 2-3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2. We've known that since about 1900. What's next?Metsfanmax wrote:We are absolutely in a position to double the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The pre-industrial concentration was about 280 ppm. The current concentration is about 400 ppm, a 40% increase. A typical 'worst-case' scenario -- where significant action on climate change is not taken by the global community -- involves the concentration reaching something like 1000 ppm by the end of the century, which is more than tripling the concentration.
OK you started saying "per doubling." Now if you cherry pick the numbers (you take 280 but it's been as high as 300 in the pre-industrial age) and you look at the current 400 you see a rate of 1.429. If you take a "worst case scenario" ... oh yea those oversimplified computer models that can't predict shit ...
shickingbrits wrote:degaston wrote:
Degaston,
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users