Large Scale Central

Record temperatures

General Discussion
#361

David,
you miss one very important fact and that is there is no proof of the existence of a god. You deny Darwin for explaining the natural world and yet use the same natural world as proof of the existence of a god. You cannot have it both ways. As an aside, I have faith in the existence of a real God, that is not based on fact but on my belief. I see no relevance in how long someone lived in the bible or an exact date of creation as both are totally irrelevant to my religion. I believe in my God and not a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite of some folklore story from eons ago. A religion that bases its beliefs on a literal human translation of the supposed ‘word of god’ is tied up in the fine print and lost the true meaning of the word of god. ‘Proving’ one thing, purely by supposedly disproving another, is not an accepted methodology. To prove something you need to actually prove IT! You cannot prove that black is black by proving that white is not black. You have no actual proof of the date of creation or that a god exists, that is backed up by clinical fact. Belief may be truth, but it is not a fact.

     I would actually prefer to talk about something meaningful to this site and that is your railroad modelling.  I am sure that there are other sites more suited to discussion on the truth or fallacy of some religions.
#362
Quote:


When attempting to search for missing links, one finds that there is literally nothing, when there should have been something. All searches for these so-called transitional form fossils over a period of 150 years has failed to find even one. What kind of empirical evidence is that, regarding the origin of earth’s life forms? The years of diligent search indicate a glaring absence of molecules-to-man evolutionary phylogeny in the fossil record. In other words, the data of earth’s fossils, if analyzed forensically, show that evolutionary phylogeny notions are just empty imaginings.

#363

Deleted

#364

If someone quotes from an article word for word one should credit the author or place the post in quotes.

And Tony, you certainly earned those horns with that last post! LOL.

#365

Deleted

#366
TonyWalsham said:
M. Verbrugge said:
SNIP And Tony, you certainly earned those horns with that last post! LOL.
Just ask Mr Polk what he thinks of me. ;)
Good one Tony! N
#367

David,
once again you discredit the theory of evolution and ignore your responsibility to prove the existence of a god. I will state once again as the message is getting lost - you cannot prove creation theory by disproving evolution. You need to firstly prove creation and the existence of a god, then attempt to settle the evolution debate. You cannot disprove evolution to prove creation. Facts require unequivocal evidence and you have exactly zero proof of the existence of a god, or the date of creation. The bible, shock horror, is not fact. I repeat, the bible is not a book of factual knowlege. The bible is a religious book of faith. Nothing more. Do you really think that with all of creation to astound your senses, that god is so self-absorbed in his own greatness that he thinks that man really needs to know the exact date of creation? Religion is about religion, nothing more. Just in case the message did not sink in - prove creation theory firstly and then, repeat, THEN attempt to discredit evolution.

     I gave you the opportunity to relate your interest in your railroading,  but apparently,  your interest in this site is extolling your devotion to your religion.
#368
M. Verbrugge said:
If someone quotes from an article word for word one should credit the author or place the post in quotes.
You are correct, forgive my sloppiness in my haste to post the answer.

The Evidence of Nothing
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D.*

#369
Quote:
http://www.icr.org/scientific-accuracy/ Scientific Accuracy

Many would suggest that the Bible is an antiquated religious book, filled with scientific fallacies and mistakes. Others believe that the Bible is a book of true religion, but dealing solely with spiritual subjects, with any matters of science and history to be interpreted spiritually or allegorically.

Either the Bible is wholly reliable on every subject with which it deals, or it is not the Word of God.

Although the Bible is obviously not a science textbook (otherwise it would be continuously out of date), the Bible does contain all the basic principles upon which true science is built. The Bible abounds with references to nature and natural processes, and thus frequently touches on the various sciences. For instance, there are many passages that deal with principles of hydrology, geology, astronomy, meteorology, biology, physics, cosmology, and the grand principles of the space-mass/energy-time continuum.

Again, if the God revealed in the Bible truly exists, then everything that He reveals would of necessity be true.

One often hears of mistakes or errors in the Bible. Seldom, when confronted, is there an example provided. When such “errors” are cited, they fall into three kinds of alleged mistakes: 1) mathematical rounding, 2) relative motion, or 3) miracles. Obviously, mathematical rounding is both scientific and in constant use today, as is the use of relative motion for all sorts of navigation and distance calculations. To deny the miraculous is to assume that one is omniscient.

Just as the Bible has become a source book for history and archaeology, so it is also a source book for the foundational principles of science. Those who ignore the information of Scripture will be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).

http://www.icr.org/scientific-accuracy/

#370

I honestly do not know how this turned into a religious discussion. I began with the politicization of Global Warming (OP) and some where this turned into me being inside the barrel on a religious discussion.

Some of the questions I thought were sincere and not just an attempt to insult or discredit my faith. Others sounded … Let me put it this way, if I called your loving mother a whore, without having even met her, you would most likely be justifiably angered and upset by my remarks. Well I love God, he is my Lord and Savior and for anyone here to continues to insult or belittle Him or me for loving Him, is doing the same thing, from my point of view. So back off, and I’ll drop the subject. Any further sincere questions can be directed to me offline.

#371

Deleted

#372

Well somebody had to do it.

#373

Deleted

#374
TonyWalsham said:
David, I believe you were the first to rase the subject of Evolution and therefore religion on Feb 6th.

“On and on a side note, I didn’t say anything about the absurdity of the theory of evolution, but I guess I did now.”

So it is apt you should be the first to offer to agree to disagree.


Peace with honor then.

#375

May we be dismissed to the parlor for fancy cut sandwich’s, punch and cookies?
:wink:

#376

On the “Global Warming” note…how come this winter’s reports are showing an increase of Artic ice…?

#377
Fred Mills said:
On the "Global Warming" note......how come this winter's reports are showing an increase of Artic ice........?
Well, Fr. Fred, it's like this, see...

Hear, O Warm World, the Word of Good News.

I drive a big diseasal pickup. It puts out a lot of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide, which are commonly called “Green House Gases,” (GHG)

Now, never mind that 98% of GHG is water vapor, and that only 0.4% of GHG is carbon based, that doesn’t matter to the First Church of Global Warming, (FCGW). By controlling carbon based emissions, the FCGW can gain control of the world’s economies, greatly increasing the flow of offerings at services, each week.

Now, the FCGW has come to realize that there are flaws in their Gospel of Global Warming, (GWG), so they have written an alternate ending to the gospel, where they no longer call their faith Global Warming (GW), but now call it Climate Change, (CC). This is a new development in the FCGW, and not all of the parishes have gotten the word, so only a few of the more liberal, large urban congregations have managed to change the name of their church to the First Church of Climate Change, (FCCC).

Are you still with me, Fr. Fred? This religion, being made up is far more complicated than is Branch Railroadianism (BR), the one, true faith. But, no matter. One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh… I digress.

So, by calling their faith Climate Change, instead of Global Warming, they can now attribute anything to carbon based emissions, thus guaranteeing a steady income for the Bishop.

So, you see, according to the FCGW, or the newer FCCC, it is my diseasal truck that is the cause of the increase in the polar icecap.

Hear endeth the lesson. Hall e lew yah! Go in peace, the mess is ended.

#378

Ahh, my son, Stevey;

That makes one great amount of great sense. I guess I wasn’t too far off base to originally call it “GlowBall” warming…!!!

Glow balls were used to attract attention in advertising a few long years ago…

#379

Deleted

#380
David Hill said:
TonyWalsham said:
David, I believe you were the first to rase the subject of Evolution and therefore religion on Feb 6th.

“On and on a side note, I didn’t say anything about the absurdity of the theory of evolution, but I guess I did now.”

So it is apt you should be the first to offer to agree to disagree.


Peace with honor then.

David,
You say that you have been insulted so that you felt that someone called your mother a whore and then you say Quote: “Peace with honor then.” State just one example of someone making an insult that insulted you so much you felt like someone was calling your mother a whore. You have shown in basically every posting your political and religious biasses.