One of the perils with science is, it acclimates people to let others make their discoveries for them, and that doesn't work with God.
Not one iota of affirmation will be given to the faithless, lacking all grace and humility, who beseech one another for answers (as the blind leading the blind), or treat God as a wind-up doll, that He should conform to our beck and call, however odious and disrespectful, and void of love. What a farce!
Ask Him POLITELY, with English words if you have to, until you get better and are able with your feelings (not the five senses).
The problem is, in the interim of figuring out whether or not there's too much CO2, there has already long been government policy in place assuming there is. Not just that, but it opens the floodgates for crooked policy that has nothing to do with the environment. Such is with the bad joke that is "carbon taxes," whose purpose is nothing more than economic warfare/siege/wealth redistribution:
This is what I'm talking about with "priorities." These destructive policies that are undeniably changing the world are taking a backseat to, and enabled by, what "might possibly" change the world. Although in all fairness, if I were an atheist holding in my heart the ramifications of a meaningless existence, where humanity's destruction could happen at any time "just because," I would be haunted too by any number of calamities.
EDIT: I'm trying to wrap my head around this...but it just seems that everything the atheist mindset stands for invariably aids and abets the New World Order one way or another. Never mind, it makes perfect sense.
They don't think it through because they don't take it seriously. They don't take it seriously because they didn't think it through. You can lay it out for them and say "in the absence of abiogenesis, the existence of life necessitates a living creator." You can flip their usual arguments upside-down and illustrate their undue faith in abiogenesis. It doesn't matter. What matters is having the right attitude, demonstrating faith through deeds, and leading by example.
The link is not for the likes of us, but for the stubborn faithless who still insist on seeking God on their terms (if at all), clawing tooth-and-nail along the scientific process in hopes of catching God "with his pants down." Is the God not a living God? What force on earth or in the known universe could ever hope to reveal the living God against his will? Such impudence! Such pride!
I've put innumerable theories through their paces over the years from human beings being Satan's fallen angels spoken of in Revelation, to the human body being an unrecognizably advanced biotechnology, to the universe itself existing inside someone's imagination. I don't hold any singular theory as a definitive stance; I am undecided. Actually, I'm finding that the more time passes, the less importance I place on the topic. For me, the acquisition of knowledge for my own cognitive satisfaction is finally taking a backseat to virtue and personal worth. Real, tangible results; the bearing of fruit, if you will.
I gotta stop focusing on petty arguments that mean nothing.
All I know conclusively is that there is a devil-worshipping oligarchy that aspires to control the world, who call themselves the "Enlightened Ones" and are hoarding the world's knowledge.
Of course this is all well outside the bounds of the thread, but you definitely forced my hand with this one.
We need some kind of breakthrough, be it the discovery of ancient records from that time (if they exist) or a way to manipulate or traverse space-time to see for ourselves. Until such a thing occurs, it behooves us to withhold our presumptions of our origins, and to not owe our (comparatively) staggeringly mind-blowing level of intelligence and proclivity towards artistic pursuits to "chance" just because it sounds good on paper.
As it stands, no it isn't stupid to investigate millions of years ago, it's only stupid to draw conclusions.
Mind you, my numbers of 10,000 BC are ballpark. I'm just making a point.
No, writing was invented multiple times by different peoples, as your own bit on Stonehenge demonstrates. This means things aren't as linear as you suppose. It's the same principle as with America being discovered long before Christopher Columbus (Vikings and talk of Egyptians even), or how about the ancient Greeks knowing that the world was round! I could go on.
It's understandable that you misinterpret my position; this whole argument was tangential from the start because I had to decipher your position with nothing but a cryptic one-liner nitpick about writing and 4000 BC like I'm freaking Sherlock Holmes. And you accuse me of wasting your time! Though admittedly, I had it coming by telling you to clap your trap flap.
My original point stands, and that is it's stupid to go back a million years before we figure out 1,000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond.
What a shitty cheap shot. Actually I'm well within your 2 simple thing. Less hubris if you would, perhaps enough to consider that an advanced civilization isn't going to use rock and chisel in the first place, but degradable paper. So the lack of writings in a 9,000 year old city can go both ways.
EDIT: It's totally what you were saying, or else tell me the point in changing my 10,000 BC to your 4,000 BC
What you're saying is let's forget about anything before 4,000 BC because written language is our only chance of ever knowing the course of human events.
So explain how this doesn't give us all the more reason to withhold our presumptions, and why we should even give a modicum of serious thought to where we were a million years ago. We go but a fraction of the way and already there's a huge disconnect. The prevailing theory then is totally baseless outside that "it would explain a whole lot." I can come up with theories that "explain a whole lot" too. It's not hard.
"Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old."
"It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago."
How about we draw a line from present to past instead of past to present, and nail down that enormous block of history from 1000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond that's by and large a total mystery, before we attribute the unprecedented physiological differences of the human mammal to the "of course"-ness of hum-drum scientism.
If Occam's Razor was the miracle knife everyone thinks it is then the planets would be perfect spheres as the Greeks supposed.
Cockblocked...but then this is the hallmark of truth, through the ages.
What manner of "open-mindedness" has he who is unwilling to turn every stone!
Or who is least capable of identifying deception, except he who hides from it, never learning or practicing in any wise to discern it from truth, etc.
One of the perils with science is, it acclimates people to let others make their discoveries for them, and that doesn't work with God.
Not one iota of affirmation will be given to the faithless, lacking all grace and humility, who beseech one another for answers (as the blind leading the blind), or treat God as a wind-up doll, that He should conform to our beck and call, however odious and disrespectful, and void of love. What a farce!
Ask Him POLITELY, with English words if you have to, until you get better and are able with your feelings (not the five senses).
http://jahtruth.net
The problem is, in the interim of figuring out whether or not there's too much CO2, there has already long been government policy in place assuming there is. Not just that, but it opens the floodgates for crooked policy that has nothing to do with the environment. Such is with the bad joke that is "carbon taxes," whose purpose is nothing more than economic warfare/siege/wealth redistribution:
This is what I'm talking about with "priorities." These destructive policies that are undeniably changing the world are taking a backseat to, and enabled by, what "might possibly" change the world. Although in all fairness, if I were an atheist holding in my heart the ramifications of a meaningless existence, where humanity's destruction could happen at any time "just because," I would be haunted too by any number of calamities.
EDIT: I'm trying to wrap my head around this...but it just seems that everything the atheist mindset stands for invariably aids and abets the New World Order one way or another. Never mind, it makes perfect sense.
@EternalWraith: Go
They don't think it through because they don't take it seriously. They don't take it seriously because they didn't think it through. You can lay it out for them and say "in the absence of abiogenesis, the existence of life necessitates a living creator." You can flip their usual arguments upside-down and illustrate their undue faith in abiogenesis. It doesn't matter. What matters is having the right attitude, demonstrating faith through deeds, and leading by example.
The link is not for the likes of us, but for the stubborn faithless who still insist on seeking God on their terms (if at all), clawing tooth-and-nail along the scientific process in hopes of catching God "with his pants down." Is the God not a living God? What force on earth or in the known universe could ever hope to reveal the living God against his will? Such impudence! Such pride!
Dr. Sylvester James Gates, Jr. Presents Evidence For Intelligent Design:
Atheism is an anachronism from a simpler time.
God.
You ought to give it some serious thought because neither life nor the universe are givens.
Did you ever stop to think why it would be boring? Why Star Wars without the Force would be boring?
Reassure me that personal amusement isn't your highest truth and that you actually give a shit.
Life existing isn't logical, but it exists anyway. They don't say truth is stranger than fiction for nothing.
Gradius hit the nail on the head.
EDIT: There's a reason that Spock wasn't the captain.
@Hookah604: Go
I've put innumerable theories through their paces over the years from human beings being Satan's fallen angels spoken of in Revelation, to the human body being an unrecognizably advanced biotechnology, to the universe itself existing inside someone's imagination. I don't hold any singular theory as a definitive stance; I am undecided. Actually, I'm finding that the more time passes, the less importance I place on the topic. For me, the acquisition of knowledge for my own cognitive satisfaction is finally taking a backseat to virtue and personal worth. Real, tangible results; the bearing of fruit, if you will.
I gotta stop focusing on petty arguments that mean nothing.
All I know conclusively is that there is a devil-worshipping oligarchy that aspires to control the world, who call themselves the "Enlightened Ones" and are hoarding the world's knowledge.
Of course this is all well outside the bounds of the thread, but you definitely forced my hand with this one.
@Hookah604: Go
We need some kind of breakthrough, be it the discovery of ancient records from that time (if they exist) or a way to manipulate or traverse space-time to see for ourselves. Until such a thing occurs, it behooves us to withhold our presumptions of our origins, and to not owe our (comparatively) staggeringly mind-blowing level of intelligence and proclivity towards artistic pursuits to "chance" just because it sounds good on paper.
As it stands, no it isn't stupid to investigate millions of years ago, it's only stupid to draw conclusions.
Mind you, my numbers of 10,000 BC are ballpark. I'm just making a point.
@Hookah604: Go
No, writing was invented multiple times by different peoples, as your own bit on Stonehenge demonstrates. This means things aren't as linear as you suppose. It's the same principle as with America being discovered long before Christopher Columbus (Vikings and talk of Egyptians even), or how about the ancient Greeks knowing that the world was round! I could go on.
It's understandable that you misinterpret my position; this whole argument was tangential from the start because I had to decipher your position with nothing but a cryptic one-liner nitpick about writing and 4000 BC like I'm freaking Sherlock Holmes. And you accuse me of wasting your time! Though admittedly, I had it coming by telling you to clap your trap flap.
My original point stands, and that is it's stupid to go back a million years before we figure out 1,000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond.
@Hookah604: Go
What a shitty cheap shot. Actually I'm well within your 2 simple thing. Less hubris if you would, perhaps enough to consider that an advanced civilization isn't going to use rock and chisel in the first place, but degradable paper. So the lack of writings in a 9,000 year old city can go both ways.
EDIT: It's totally what you were saying, or else tell me the point in changing my 10,000 BC to your 4,000 BC
What you're saying is let's forget about anything before 4,000 BC because written language is our only chance of ever knowing the course of human events.
So explain how this doesn't give us all the more reason to withhold our presumptions, and why we should even give a modicum of serious thought to where we were a million years ago. We go but a fraction of the way and already there's a huge disconnect. The prevailing theory then is totally baseless outside that "it would explain a whole lot." I can come up with theories that "explain a whole lot" too. It's not hard.
@Hookah604: Go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm
"Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old."
"It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago."
How about we draw a line from present to past instead of past to present, and nail down that enormous block of history from 1000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond that's by and large a total mystery, before we attribute the unprecedented physiological differences of the human mammal to the "of course"-ness of hum-drum scientism.
If Occam's Razor was the miracle knife everyone thinks it is then the planets would be perfect spheres as the Greeks supposed.
EDIT:
Keep flapping your clap trap you hatin lovin Benedict Arnold, you wouldn't be laughing if you knew who the woman was and her credentials.