Originally posted by Deano
i believe anything is possible.next
Then you're willing to entertain the idea that David Icke is either a paranoid lunatic or a conman who writes books to make a pound off people who are willing to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.
Point being, which of the three scenarios would most likely be true?
1) David Icke is correct, Lizard Men are controlling the world
2) David Icke is a paranoid lunatic with serious mental disorders
3) Daivd Icke is just a conman writing fiction and passing it as fact too line his own pockets.
?
Originally posted by Deano
i believe anything is possible.next
Of course "possible" doesn't really cut it when measured in terms of "probable" - I guess it is possible my brain will wake up in a jar in Sweden tomorrow. But I doubt it.
In fact I dare say I can say "it isn't going to happen" because there is no rational, logical or probable reason to give it any likihood of occuring.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Fish breathe water." What crappy Christian fundamentalist community college gave you a science degree.
Originally posted by sonnetIndeed.
😆 You are so funny!!!!.
Originally posted by sonnetYou haven't even begun to gauge the limits of my hedonism.
I guess this is all you are capable of.... twisting words so that you can feel good about yourself. HA HA hA HA.
Originally posted by sonnetElectrolysis, duh.
Do you actually know how the oxygen ends up in the fish? I surely hope so. Otherwise I'll have to ask what crappy school you are attending.
Your fascistic rigid opinion that your opinion is fact belie any scientific aptitude. One easily assumes your post worded in a manner to suggest you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly suggested you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly, rather than diffusion of dissolved oxygen through gills.
"God" did not leave oxygen in water so that fish don't die, oxygen dissolves in water because it's soluble in water.
Originally posted by Robtard
Then you're willing to entertain the idea that David Icke is either a paranoid lunatic or a conman who writes books to make a pound off people who are willing to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.Point being, which of the three scenarios would most likely be true?
1) David Icke is correct, Lizard Men are controlling the world
2) David Icke is a paranoid lunatic with serious mental disorders
3) Daivd Icke is just a conman writing fiction and passing it as fact too line his own pockets.?
if you read his books you will find that it is neither 2 or 3.
i think you should check out some of michael tsarions work to understand things better.
Originally posted by Deano
if you read his books you will find that it is neither 2 or 3.i think you should check out some of michael tsarions work to understand things better.
And I can read that Jonah survived in the belly of a "great fish" for several days, thought technically it is not mathematically impossible, but it is highly improbable it could ever happen.
As Imperial Samurai mentioned, possible and probable do matter.
So, logically thinking, which of the three would seem the most "probable"?
I watched a special on Atlantis, it had Michael Tsarion in it. He seemed to be a bit of the 'mystic forces' and 'alien influence' nut. Well actually, more than just a bit.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your fascistic rigid opinion that your opinion is fact belie any scientific aptitude. One easily assumes your post worded in a manner to suggest you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly suggested you believe fish extract oxygen from water molecules directly, rather than diffusion of dissolved oxygen through gills."God" did not leave oxygen in water so that fish don't die, oxygen dissolves in water because it's soluble in water.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotHe's also a shit creator. If he created us, why are we given "rules" to make sure we're good, wouldn't it make more sense if he mad us all "good"? In fact, the Bible itself says we are all born with sin. As in we are all "evil". If I was creating something, I would create it how I want it to be, not sneeze everything into existence.
Blah, blah, gibberish. Fascist.Oxides. Carbonates. Silicates. Phosphates.
God is inept at separating things.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What makes the Bible true?
Originally posted by sonnet
Thank you for showing how crappy your understanding is of Creation. Any first year in junior high understands the different properties of oxygen in water, air etc. It still stays oxygen, so don't try and split hairs on the subject. Oh and actually I have a Honours degree in Science.
Yeah, in Christian science?
I've read genesis dozens of times. Franky, you knwo shit about "science" considering if you don't know that the primary component of air is Nitrogen or that ther is a differnce between an oxygen atom and O2 you know shit about the natural world.
..... There shouldn't be any discussion mixing science with religion. It is an impossible topic to settle on.
And just as an observation, Sonnet, you aren't discussing but rather disregarding all opinions/thoughts coming your way. You have to be open-minded.
I just can not believe in the idea that if you aren't Christian you are Satanist ... or something of that sort. That is .. not very encouraging. I'm going to hell. Awww heck.
Re: What makes the Bible true?
Originally posted by lord xyzIf one believes in God, and one believes God spoke to the Hebrews, then the Bible is fact. If one believes that God spoke to man period, and you believe that such men would keep a record of such events, then the Bible is the most conforming to such a belief. Other records that would fit are the LDS scriptures and the Quran, both sets of scripture claim descent from the Bible. The question then runs which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did belief come and the Bible fit the scope of that belief, or did knowledge of the Bible come and belief conform to it? With myself, I have my beliefs as to the logic of deity, a deity must exist within some logical frame. If I deem a religion to hold irrational or illogical beliefs concerning deity, such a religion is probably false. Thus, beliefs concerning creation being "poof there it is" or other creation theories that do not conform to existing scientific fact are illogical. The Bible, as interpreted by the LDS church and expounded upon by its prophets is for me the most conforming with a logical assessment of the possibility of God, thus, since I believe there to be a God, the Bible is the most logical choice of texts to hold as true. In summary, the Bible is true, insofar as it is translated and interpreted correctly, because I believe in a logical God.
I don't think anyone has ever even answered this (without using the Bible itself as a reference). Why? If someone here is very devoted to the Bible, and see it as fact, could you tell me how it is fact?