Christmas

**Croesy Blue** · 06-12-21, 10:51

Originally Posted by truthpaste

It's the fruit of mankind's rebellion.

In the same way that if you sleep with 20 guys, become infected with aids and then donate your sperm to a sperm bank.
The potential resultant baby is now living with the decisions you made.

Seems a bit unfair that god would allow an innocent baby to have that happen to him. I wouldn’t want to worship someone who could stop that and didn’t.

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 10:56

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Oh so you don’t need accuracies or truth to believe in God? Anyone could write and draw an inaccurate diagram or passage and you’ll accept it if it fits your view. Interesting.
You said people dying of AIDS was their own fault, you’ve still not answered my question about cancer? My mate died at 19, care to explain how that was his fault?

If he is winding you up fella just stop replying to him, not worth getting worked up online over a stranger when personal emotions get involved

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 16:49

Originally Posted by truthpaste

If you read what I said carefully I never once said "it was there OWN fault" - I said that they inherited a rebellious nature which led them to sin which in turn leads to suffering and eventually death for us all.
Now if that were the end of the story then Basil Fawlty was correct!

However he isn't, as the Manufacterer actually intervened* to launch His Mission to save misereble ungrateful slime like you and me, which is why we started sung carols and eat mince pies

* We are also free to ignore this intervention and enjoy Christmas once a year and give no thought to it whatsoever.

Reply to what I quoted about science..you seem to like it when it suits you, the same science that proves when and how earth was made..a big bang..you can't just selectively choose what you want to believe.

**truthpaste** · 06-12-21, 16:51

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

Reply to what I quoted about science..you seem to like it when it suits you, the same science that proves when and how earth was made..a big bang..you can't just selectively choose what you want to believe.

You said a few things re Science - Pick your most "reliable" ONE and we can look at it and see if it is a fact.

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 17:02

Originally Posted by truthpaste

You said a few things re Science - Pick your most "reliable" ONE and we can look at it and see if it is a fact.

You have posted diagrams of scientific matter because it is shaped like a cross, you choose to believe that science.

The same science, I'll mention it again in capitals THE BIG BANG as my ONE, cheers for the selection offer there, the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true. The big bang kind of pisses all over the god creating earth part of your belief. But you probably don't believe that science as it doesn't suit your belief and doesn't have lots of pretty crosses.

**truthpaste** · 06-12-21, 18:48

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

You have posted diagrams of scientific matter because it is shaped like a cross, you choose to believe that science.

The same science, I'll mention it again in capitals THE BIG BANG as my ONE, cheers for the selection offer there, the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true. The big bang kind of pisses all over the god creating earth part of your belief. But you probably don't believe that science as it doesn't suit your belief and doesn't have lots of pretty crosses.

As you said "absolutely ****ing true" then it must be a fact.
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil).
So much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-

Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED

"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

Given that in this short paragraph we have:-

* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?

**Baloo** · 07-12-21, 10:31

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Given that in this short paragraph we have:-

* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

**Taunton Blue Genie** · 07-12-21, 11:26

Originally Posted by Baloo

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

**truthpaste** · 07-12-21, 13:56

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.

Verified science works - no press conference required

**Croesy Blue** · 07-12-21, 14:01

Originally Posted by Baloo

To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.

In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.

So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.

Yep theory in Science is different to the everyday use.

**truthpaste** · 07-12-21, 14:09

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

**lardy** · 07-12-21, 14:36

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Because they are people who would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did I promise.

**bobh** · 07-12-21, 19:32

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.

If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?

Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.

Gravity doesn't exist.
The Earth sucks.

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 18:51

Originally Posted by truthpaste

As you said "absolutely ****ing true" then it must be a fact.
What you mean is this, as I've been told since I was in short trousers that scientists believe this is how things started, then it must be correct. Let's go to National Geographic, a scientific publication that has never knowingly supported the Bible and in fact once produced a 15 page article celebrating a 'verified' fossil of a dinosaur with feathers!! (in a later edition it had to apologise for jumping the gun as the fossil turned out to be a hoax of a bird fossil stuck onto a dinosaur fossil - so much for science speculation turning out to be utterly reliable:-

Before we look at one statement, here is the entire article >> ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE EXPLAINED

"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom. It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

Given that in this short paragraph we have:-

* Here's the theory
* It's thought that..
* but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work.
* we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't".

So your "absolutely ****ing true" is hanging on so much uncertainties that I fail to see how any honest individual - scientist or not - could claim it to be an absolute?

Yes, I like what I read. I am absolutely ficking sure, maybe they have to be careful with how they choose to feel about it.

Doesn't your story go back 6000 years? There is proof of humans well before that.

**truthpaste** · 06-12-21, 18:56

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

Yes, I like what I read. I am absolutely ficking sure, maybe they have to be careful with how they choose to feel about it.

Doesn't your story go back 6000 years? There is proof of humans well before that.

Can you explain that first sentence please? (choose to feel about it)

The Bible account to Adam does go back just over 6000 years. So to PROVE it incorrect (no scientific FEELINGS or 'we believe that...' statements) go and get your proof

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 19:09

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Can you explain that first sentence please? (choose to feel about it)

The Bible account to Adam does go back just over 6000 years. So to PROVE it incorrect (no scientific FEELINGS or 'we believe that...' statements) go and get your proof

Yes, I like what science says about the big bang. I agree.

So.your account goes back 6000 years, that's when it all started? I've not been one in this thread to jump on the bibles back fella, so I won't need to disprove what I haven't claimed is drivel, cheers.

Humans have walked the earth for 100s of thousands of years. 360,000 to be a little more on the dot.

Some trees are 5000 years old.. then there's this

"A clonal colony can survive for much longer than an individual tree. A colony of 48,000*quaking aspen*trees (nicknamed*Pando), covering 106 acres (43*ha) in the*Fishlake National Forest*of*Utah, is considered one of the oldest and largest organisms in the world. Recent estimates set the colony's age at several thousand (up to 14,000)*"

Double your bible in one colony of trees. Who knew.

Shall we get into really big numbers with dinosaurs or don't you want all them 0s?

**Croesy Blue** · 06-12-21, 19:23

The Earth is categorically 4.5 billion years old. They’re couldn’t be much more proof.

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 19:34

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

The Earth is categorically 4.5 billion years old. They’re couldn’t be much more proof.

I think I scared him off.

I know not everyone lives online, but when you post a reply like he did you generally stick around for the reply..he thought he had me

**truthpaste** · 06-12-21, 20:24

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

I think I scared him off.

I know not everyone lives online, but when you post a reply like he did you generally stick around for the reply..he thought he had me

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

**Canton Kev** · 06-12-21, 20:34

Originally Posted by truthpaste

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Where’s your proof the world is 6000 years old ��

**Bluebirdman Of Alcathays** · 06-12-21, 22:52

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

I'm getting the impression that if no-one can come up with a definitive explanation for the origin of the universe and life itself (with witnesses) then that would make your theistic beliefs fact? Have I misread this?

**truthpaste** · 07-12-21, 14:11

Originally Posted by Bluebirdman Of Alcathays

I'm getting the impression that if no-one can come up with a definitive explanation for the origin of the universe and life itself (with witnesses) then that would make your theistic beliefs fact? Have I misread this?

Completely, but that happens when you fear the fallout from an actual exchange of views.

**Bluebirdman Of Alcathays** · 07-12-21, 16:02

Originally Posted by truthpaste

Completely, but that happens when you fear the fallout from an actual exchange of views.

What fallout would that be?

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 20:31

Originally Posted by truthpaste

I had an online meeting. It happens.

What hasn't happened is ANYONE providing a source for their 'silver bullet' fact.

Take your time. See you tomorrow, God willing.

Trees humans and dinosaurs all older than 6000 years.

That's 3.

Water in the oceans 3.8 billion years old. There's even more 0s.

I don't really see the point in replying to you anymore, you don't reply to anything put to you either.

**dembethewarrior** · 06-12-21, 20:39

Originally Posted by Canton Kev

Where’s your proof the world is 6000 years old ��

Slim pickings

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=proof...6000+years+old

Thread: Christmas

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Re: Christmas

Posting Permissions