100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
WHAT DO WOMEN REALLY WANT???
|
|
I haven't figured that one out. I do know a guy can have 3 things which can never be too big: 1. bank account 2. biceps 3. dick Women do like those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
online relationships
|
|
In my experience, online relationships are a waste of time. Devote your personal time to something more fulfilling and worthwhile. Many of the would-be suitors are "flakes."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
rate me please
|
|
I think you are a cute college coed. You should not have any problem meeting men here, or anywhere else. Use your feminine charms for "good," and not for the "dark side."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have just made my point, there would have to be an infinite number of variables that would have to unfold in an exact manner (in order for the species/life form to reproduce itself and perpetuate. I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that fact that your 'so-called' mathematics is not mathematics at all, but merely an uneducated opinion. I actaully suggested that I personally believe that the numbers we already see in the visible universe are quite suffcient to support evolution. Evolution is a well observed fact. And I'm not just speaking about biological evolution, but rather the entire evolution of the whole universe. Moreoever, you've totally evaded my the more important issues. Your argument basically goes as follows: "I can't understand mathematics and evolution, therefore a God must exist". Well fine. But then which God Myth are you going to choose? As I've pointed out, the Biblical myth is pretty sick. So there's really no reason to chose it. Moreover, since you need to choose one on faith alone, why place your faith in the idea that you are at odd with God and require redemption? If you're going to chose a God Myth on faith, why not choose a more positive God myth such as the Moon Goddess, or Wanka Tanka of the American Indians? Or even Eastern Mysticism if you can cope with the higher level of intellect required for that form of thought. Also, I'm not an atheist. I actually believe in Eastern Mysticsm in its most fundamental concept. As far as I can see the entire evolution of the universe supports it perfectly. If we're going to choose a "God Myth" we may as well choose one that at least matches observation. Whether you "Believe" in evolution or not is irrelavent. Observation clearly shows us that life existed before man. It also shows us that death and disease existed before man. Therefore the whole Biblical premise that mankind was responsible for bringing imperfection and death into the world is cleary false. Therefore the Bible is a lie no matter what. There's no getting around that one. Actually, you don't know what my academic credentials are. So, you speak from ignorance. I did take statistics and probability courses to a substantial extent. I do understand the concept of indepenent variables. Those are precisely what you discount. I don't know to what extent you know computer programming. But, in the olden days they had "flow charts" showing a desired pattern of commands, functions, logic, and results. So, each step along the path could and would lead to a new branch of outcomes (potential outcomes). According to the evolution mantra, single-celled organisms spawned out of primordial ooze (through whatever means, chemical reaction, its own volition, biological process, etc.). They would have to have been asexual, for they were the progenitors of the species. Eventually, the organisms progressed, advanced, diverted in theiir course of development. Some developed wings, some developed tails. etc. Of course, some species died, while others mutated. Along the way, circumstances, environmental conditions, and random chance played a large and under this theory a substantial part in their creation/existence/proliferation/survival/mutation. Indeed, uunder this creed, everything is in flux and changing. The problem with this theory is that they have never found a "smoking gun". By that, I mean a skeletal specimen of a hybrid creature in the evolution process. Now, they have observed living species that have traits of others. For example, there are fish who can propel themselves and live on dry land for several days. But, people are searching in vaiin for "Bigfoot", which might represet a ling between ape and homoo sapiens. If you have data which will refute me and others, display it. Don't hit at it or around it. If you are so intellectual, you cann resolves this matter in a 5 minute bloog insertion. By the way, the author of this post wanted someone to prove the existence of the Christian God/Jewish God. The discussion was not as to God's character or rationality. Someone so opinionated and supposedly intellectual surely can't ignore mathematical unlikelihoods as those which exist in the evolution theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These mathematical arguments against probabilities are utterly absurd nonsense. Any serious mathematician knows that before any probabilities can be constructed one must first know all the variables. However, no one has a clue how large the actual universe is, or how often life evolves within it. Without those numbers making statements about probabilities is meaningless. Moreover, like Jeanniebean has so wisely pointed out, if there is an intelligent creator it is most likely us. This is what Eastern Mysticism is all about. Tat tvam asi. You should look into it. It's far better than a sick demented Zeus-like jealous God who is appeased by blood sacrifices and has people stoning each other to death. IMHO the Biblical picture of a God is so pathetic and sick that I could only feel sorry for any such deity. I most certainly wouldn't worship it. Such a "God" would be truly sick in serious ways. If that was the only choice for a "Creator", then as far as I'm concerned we'd be far better off being random accidents actually. However, like Jeanniebean, I'm intelligent enough to realize that there are far more possible explanation. It doesn't come down to either beliving in an egotistical jealous Zeus-like godhead of the Bible who is appeased by blood sacrifice, vesus atheism. Thankfully, there's a whole rainbow of other possibilities. So any arguement that takes the form of the following is just plain sick: "We can't explain the universe so we must believe the Bible!" That's a very limited way of thinking right there, IMHO. It's not an either/or situation,. You may as well say, "We can't explain the unvierse so we must believe in the Mood Goddess", or whatever. That makes every bit as much sense as your arguement. There are many other possibilities for "intelligent design". Moreover, just look at the Biblical picture? Does that appear to be intelligent to you? It most certainly does not appear to be intelligent to me. It's a story of a hoplessly desperate God who attempts to solve all his problems using violent means, right down to the Christian distortion of the mythology that has him sacrificing his own son as a blood sacrifice unto himself. How sick is that? I don't see enough intelligence in that story to indicate that it could be of divine origin. It's all about solving problems via violent methods. That's just utterly stupid, IMHO. If such a God even did exist all I could do is feel sorry for it, I most certainly wouldn't feel like worshiping such a sad entity. To believe that I was created by such a helpless idiot would be extremely depressing. I think I'd actually rather be an accident than to have been the creation of such a sick demented jealous egotistical deity. That would be the worst nightmare I can even imagine. So let's all have a little faith that if there is an intelligent creator, it's actually INTELLIGENT and not one of the sick demented deities that these ancient Mediterranean mythologies suggest. That was just a very SICK culture and their mythology reflects their sick demented male-chauvinistic way of thinking. It's not even close to being 'divine'. You have just made my point, there would have to be an infinite number of variables that would have to unfold in an exact manner (in order for the species/life form to reproduce itself and perpetuate. You and Massagetrade went to the same school of logic. Disagreeing and disputing are not synonymous with "refuting." It is easy to denigrate the concepts of other patrons without providing your own. Athiests are so "high" on science over an all-knowing deity. But, the very science you adore points toward creation. I will give you a mathematical scenario with a limited number of variables, say 37. You go to Vegas and plop down $ 10 on the number (26). Your odds are 1 in 37 of winning. You win. You feel lucky, so you try again. A different number would mean the odds would be 1/37. The same number would also mean 1/37. In either situation, you have a limited, modest number of variables. Don't you think the variables concerning the formation/perpetuation of a species would be vast? You would have to take in the environmental factors, the circumstances/experiences of the creature in addition to random chance. If all of these things are an accident, a quirk of serendipity, you take me to Vegas and show me the system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A tautology is a redundancy. It is not redundant to define God as the sum of all things in the universe just as it is not redundant to define a flower as: 1 a : the part of a seed plant that normally bears reproductive organs : blossom, inflorescence b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant differentiated into a calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels c : a plant cultivated for its blossoms 2 a : the best part or example <the flower of our youth> b : the finest most vigorous period c : a state of blooming or flourishing <in full flower> A flower like God is what it is and it's existence is shown in that you can see it and measure parts of it even if a full description of it is not possible in words.  The problem with that logic is that those in the Christian faith do not regard God as "one with the universe" or the "universe itself." Under this faith, God is and was eternal and created all the cosmos, and all life on Earth and the cosmos (if other life exists). He created all tangible matter and all beings. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and exercises domain over man and all of creation. Under this faith, which I adhere to, "God is a spirit", and eternal. Under this faith, we as humans, are distinct from other created beings/lifeforms because we too have a spirit. So, when we expire on earth, our spirit departs this existence. Thus, the concept of Heaven and Hell. In the simplest sense, Heaven in the Bible equates to being in the literal presence of God. Now, God can manifest himself in various forms. Satan was an archangel who displayed iniquity and was cast out of Heaven (God's presence). But, I have digressed with biblical references. Now, there are Asian religions that do hold "God is one with the Universe." I assumed that this post was directed towards the Christian faith, because it's creator did now want "Biblical references." Incidentally, scientists have observed and documented the human aura and a measurable energy that exists while we are alive. When we die, that energy dissipates and under the Heaven/Hell creed departs to another existence/realm. Moreover, I do not think that any of the three different descriptions of God either individually or together is inconsistent fundamentally with Christianity although I am no expert... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to give the naysayers a brief illustration on "random chance" and probability, I will include a brief sample. I think even the most ardent atheist would agree that there would have to be an infinite number of necessary mathematical probabilities necessary for the creation/perpetuation of species.
Here is just a sample with a few variables: P (A) the probability of event A occurring P (A') the probability that A does not occur P (B/A) conditional probability of B, given A P (A u B) probability that A and or B occur P (A union B) probability that A and B occur Could you imagine this sequence/relationship with billions of distinct variables? Here, we are just talking about a few variables. In the atheist creed, there would have to be a random chance bonanza (infinite number of variables and potential outcomes) that somehow lend themselves TO REPLICATION. The evolution theory itself calls for mathematical probability, mutation, and random chances. Does that sound like a plausible concept in the real world? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, did you know how complex the human body/anatomy/physiology is? The human eye is capable of discerning between 5 and 10 million different shades/hues/colors. That ranks with the best man-made optical equipment. Did you know that scientists/doctors don't fully understand how the human neurological system works? We can send a man to the moon, but we are still trying to understand the human brain. It is so complex that when one sector is severely traumatized, it can divert that bodily function to another section/lobe. Yes, yes, all old news. Covered it in high school science classes, no less.  Let us say for a minute, just for argument that humans did "evolve." Well, I hate to tell you this, but that first human would have had to been an ADULT, not an infant. Anything less than an adult would not have been able to exist without support. I'm surprised others appear to take your posts seriously. These comments suggest you don't know much about how evolution is imagined to have worked. If you do, with a little thought, you can resolve this non-issue on your own. Let me give you another example in nature. The earth is positioned approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. Any closer and the oceans would boil, any further, and the oceasn would freeze. "Any closer"?? Why not actually provide a real range of tolerances, and cite a source for it? The Seasons and other astronomical/geological occurences are predictable and stable. We can create calendars to mark them. It is as if someone was controlling them, huh? Awesome! Are you shilling for the atheists? Periodic behavior implies deity? Sweet. This is a great example of how people come to see 'evidence' for a deity. I will give you one last example before I go. By "example", you meant "straw man". Well Messagetrade, what are your empirical credentials? You haven't refuted or addressed my arguments. You have so much diverted them without providing (scientific) reasons why they are invalid. I take it you are an atheist. People take my posts seriously because I explain them in terms they can readily grasp, (with examples). Well, my understanding of the scientific principles of evolution is that life evolved out of primordial ooze that "somehow spawned itself" and gradually, developed over time into more complex organisms. The intial (species) were one-celled organisms. Through time, circumstances, and environment, each of the present species progressed, advanced, and developed into what they are today. Needless to say under this theory, many diferent types of species died, mutated, etc. As far as the "complexity" of life being discussed in high school, how can you assign random chance and serendipity to the formation/existence of complex living entities, our species included. If their commplexities transcend our "scientific knowledge", wouldn't that lend credibility towards creation and a higher power. As far as the sun being an "ideal 93,000,000" away. My source of this is the "Universe" special on the History Channel. the tolerances they issued (preeminent scientists/astronomers) is 5 percent in either direction (closer or farther). You haven't said what your credentials are. But do you presume to know more than the preeminent scientists? That propostion is comical, (unless you have a Nobel prize tucked under your pillow). Periodic behavior does not imply "random chance" BECAUSE IT REPLICATES ITSELF. If something somehow, spawns itself, there are mathematical probabilities against replication. The fact exists, that cosmic relationships exist that defy our understanding. I am speaking of orbital paths, occurrences, anamolies, etc. Youu fail to see that pure "random chance" would not lend itself to producing suh complex manifestations of life or geology. Put that in your pipe "would be Nobel Prize" winner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello to anyone who responds, I moved here in 1997 from England, and am looking to make new friends, i live about 5 minutes from lackland afb! Am looking to hang out with new people, Anyone interested!?  I was born in San Antonio and I have lived most of my adult life there. I am about 15 minutes away from you by automobile, 1 hour by bicycle, 1 1/2 hours by champion marathoner. Check out my profile, read my bio, and look at my pictures. If you like what you see..........      do what comes naturally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how many World Championships has Segal won? or Van Damme? Chuck Norris was World Champion six years in a row Van Damme was a European kickboxing champion at 19. I think his record was 19-1. Actually, Chuck Norris got him into movies. I will toss in a "wildcard." Dolph Lundgren was an accomplished kickboxer before he broke into movies. I believe he was undefeated in about 28-30 fights. During the making of Rocky IV, he hit Stallone so hard in the chest during a choreographed scene, that Stallone's internal organs were pushed into his heart. Of course, Lundgren was not trying to hurt Stallone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't prove to you something you do not wish to believe. Though, I will point out things which exist in nature, that could not possibly have occurred by random chance. They had to be created.
For example, did you know how complex the human body/anatomy/physiology is? The human eye is capable of discerning between 5 and 10 million different shades/hues/colors. That ranks with the best man-made optical equipment. Did you know that scientists/doctors don't fully understand how the human neurological system works? We can send a man to the moon, but we are still trying to understand the human brain. It is so complex that when one sector is severely traumatized, it can divert that bodily function to another section/lobe. For all of those who believe that man "evolved" from lower life forms, ponder this thought. Let us say for a minute, just for argument that humans did "evolve." Well, I hate to tell you this, but that first human would have had to been an ADULT, not an infant. Anything less than an adult would not have been able to exist without support. So, that supports "creation." This is especially true in higher life forms/mammals. Not only that, but there would have to have been 2 adults of the species to procreate. Let me give you another example in nature. The earth is positioned approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. Any closer and the oceans would boil, any further, and the oceasn would freeze. Under those conditions, life would not be possible on Earth. Does that sound like humans just "hit the lottery" and lucked out, or there is a grand design? Even if life could somehow "spawn" itself, out of nothing, do you realize the mathematical odds against reproducing/replicating the species would be? The Seasons and other astronomical/geological occurences are predictable and stable. We can create calendars to mark them. It is as if someone was controlling them, huh? So, we have the complexity of life and the continuity of the earth and solar system, among other things, that would tend to indicate that we were created. I will give you one last example before I go. Let us say that you take a piece of paper and crumple it up. You toss it in the wastebasket. Is it going to turn itself into a 747 Jumbo Jet? No, it can't. To make something, anything, there has to be a volition behind it. If you believe that all of these perpetuating things are by randomm chance, I have some swamp land to sell you.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am interested in an athletic buitl guy who is looking for a serious relationship :) 18-23 yrs old Good luck finding an "Adonis" 18-23 years old looking for a serious relationship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have all seen action heroes Chuck Norris, Stallone, Schwarzanegger, Van Damme, and the list goes on an on. Now, we are talking about the actors at their peaks. In a real fight, who do you think would be the toughest? Why? Segal hands down. His fighting styles and his strengh. He also has been hired by several law enforcement agencies local and federal to teach self defense and tactics. He also was the first and only American to have a Dojo in Japan and was a bodyguard for the Llama when she was studying here in the United States at college. A close second would be Chuck Norris. The guy is tough and was undefeated. I have met him several times, he owns a house right next to the Boy Scout camo I attended and worked at in Chester California by Lake Almanor. That is a very good choice. In my haste, I forgot to mention Segal. I would not want to tangle with him in a real fight or sparring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck. He uses razor blades to brush his teeth. Not only that, he was a professional fighter. I heard that some punk tried to rob him at knifepoint at an NFL game in the 90's. Chuck used those spinning kicks to disarm and render the thug unconscious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have all seen action heroes Chuck Norris, Stallone, Schwarzanegger, Van Damme, and the list goes on an on. Now, we are talking about the actors at their peaks. In a real fight, who do you think would be the toughest? Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must also watch out for many times the ones that tell you I love you within e-mails and you have only exchanged a few e-mails watch out they are scammers...... You never know who your talking to but a clear sign is they have a picture to die for posted, language is very broken and no matter what you say they try to get you to go to yahoo to talk. Why in order to get you off of sites that will get rid of scammers.... They tend to throw the I love ya's out quickly or your all they are looking for therefore they move really fast from hello to I love you..... As the old saying goes if it looks too good to be true then most likely it is...............  Amen to that. Those scammers from Ghana, Russia, and third-world countries write long-winded, adjective laden, love soliloquies--when they don't even know your name, what you look like, or anything about your character!!!!! WATCH OUT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say "true love" means placing your spouse's/partner's happiness above and beyond everything else, including your own happiness. When
someone is willing to make selfless sacrifices to ensure your happiness, that might indicate "love." When someone forfeits, gives up, or shuns something that they want and could have, just to be with you, that might indicate they love you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am anxiously awaiting the results of a national certification/exam I took 6 weeks ago. The results are due this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this counts. But, there is a beautiful Brazilian Victoria's Secret model whose name I don't know. That would be the one. She is in all the flyers they mail out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My "forgiveness meter" is on life support systems and Chad Everett of "Medical Center" has just sent for a priest.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
