100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
How come non-believers go through life with no god or jesus but yet believers seem the need to worship and praise jesus or god?i don't feel the need to praise something or someone to make my life better i just live life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
ANCIENT ALIENS
|
|
My understanding is that the Reptilians are half human and that's why their able to control and manipulate. Since they and 'us' operate in a lower vibrational 3d realm their interests lie only in the materialism, control, power and greed, the lower frequencies. It is all coming to a head with all the cosmic activity, were being drenched in energies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
ANCIENT ALIENS
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Tue 06/05/12 12:19 PM
|
|
I seriously doubt aliens from another planet came here in the past,first the only planet in our solar system they could've came from is mars and thats very debatable.Secondly the closes star out of our solar system is proxima and it's well almost 25 trillion miles away.I'm not gonna say with 100% for sure it wasn't possible but not very realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bible verses are a cut and paste away now,also if you're debating what someone believes it's a good idea to have a little bit of knowledge of your opponents followings.
I've been noticing alot lately that people of faith are changing their perspective of their faith but still when push comes to shove the bible verses will start spewing out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Girl fronted bands
|
|
OTEP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Mon 06/04/12 05:12 AM
|
|
It really doesn't matter how many scriptures are thrown around here... I'm not seeing any of the one's that say DON'T judge each other... as I have loved you, love one another. If your gonna live your bible then leave the judging of the homo's to GOD! What really gets me too is.....the most often quoted passage related to homosexuality being forbidden, is in the OLD TESTAMENT, you know that part of the Bible that had its' laws supposedly abolished by Jesus dying on the cross? It's the same part of the Bible that forbids you to eat shellfish, or mix clothing types among other things. But I don't see either of those being obeyed by do you? If the passage related to homosexuality is still a valid law.......it would stand to reason all the other Old Testament laws are still valid as well. And if they're NOT, then neither is that one. You can't pick and choose here, make up your minds, are we under Old Testament law or not? If we are, you better be upholding all the other laws mentioned, and if we're not you owe all gay people an apology for wrongfully judging them. Either way, you got some explaining to do to someone. Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Yep thats why i posted this earlier in this thread.Some christians may not care what people do in the "flesh" but God does according to this.Also if God gave man "free will" then why give man his only begotten son?Let me guess cause it was a prophecy well if that's the case there really is no free will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if Romney does get elected will it be him and the First Ladies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Say Something Vague
|
|
Come on vague..vague...let your body move to the music..come on now vague
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sun 06/03/12 07:00 AM
|
|
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abomination. Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. --------------------------------------------------------------- So i assume Muschristews will come up with a story on what they think this really means even though others will take it for what it is.So lets just say that this was written from mans point of view (which the bible was),wouldn't this be judging? It's not specifically "judging". That is how God told us he feels about homosexual actions. That's not judging anyone, for all sins are forgivable. So just because one is a homosexual doesn't mean they are not going to Heaven. For we know not of that judgement, is soley up to Jesus Christ. It's a judgement, it's not so left and right as "Do this and you will burn in the lake of fire" or "Do this and you will have eternal life" ect. It's a judgement given to us by our God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sun 06/03/12 05:03 AM
|
|
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind,as with womankind:it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. --------------------------------------------------------------- So i assume Muschristews will come up with a story on what they think this really means even though others will take it for what it is.So lets just say that this was written from mans point of view (which the bible was),wouldn't this be judging? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
?
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 06/02/12 05:22 PM
|
|
Well it has been quiet on here alot i try to stir the pot by messing with the Muschristews but that's getting old so i'm running out of ideas.
BTW hey Kat and krupa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George bernard Shaw was a rabid supporter of eugenics... John Maynard Keynes was a prominent supporter of Eugenics Don't forget Prescott Sheldon Bush What a can of worms that name opens up A man heavily involved With Hitler and The Nazi Party 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George bernard Shaw was a rabid supporter of eugenics... John Maynard Keynes was a prominent supporter of Eugenics Don't forget Prescott Sheldon Bush What a can of worms that name opens up A man heavily involved With Hitler and The Nazi Party Really, along with Joesph Kennedy...hmm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George bernard Shaw was a rabid supporter of eugenics... John Maynard Keynes was a prominent supporter of Eugenics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if science proved beyond a reasonable doubt there is no God,believers always have fideism to lean on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 06/02/12 06:02 AM
|
|
It depends on what sideline you're on if you're on the pro-gay side the bible verses are interpreted as one way if your anti-gay then bible verses are interpreted another.Basically whatever side you're on you're going to interpret it the way you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful what you say cause the kids might repeat it.This kid is an example of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creation vs. Evolution.
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Fri 06/01/12 10:19 AM
|
|
I am also trying to understand what you mean here. I am guessing you mean we do not have examples of bacteria evolving into a higher life form. I often hear creationists demand evidence of bacteria being observed to evolve into a higher life form and I chuckle every time since that would be evidence against evolution, not for it. I don't think that's what you were doing, just making an observation.
In layman's language, its a funny fact that if you destroy some genes it can sometimes have a benefit, but if you add some active genes this is destructive. Andrew Lenski, a staunch creationist who spends his entire life lying about evolution and promoting creationism, wrote a paper that explained that an addition mutation in E coli increased its fitness in certain environments (mainly, in maltose). He of course spun it in a way where the evidence for evolution sounds like evidence against it. Its not like his audience is very discerning or knowledgeable after all. But still, even creationists admit that addition mutations can be beneficial.
Speaking of E coli, an insertion mutation was observed to allow it to utilize salicin in another experiment as well. Not that it should matter. A beneficial mutation of any kind makes the idea of creationism look pretty silly. The boundary is the number of existing good genes. You cannot increase them, that is the boundary. According to you there is no boundary because you already realize that beneficial mutations (which result in an increase in 'good' genes) does happen.
And yet according to evolution the number of non-viral good genes has increased from single cell short DNA organisms to large complex organisms. HOW? Actually I wouldn't call it DNA (which is double-stranded) since it more likely began as single-strand genetic material. But I digress.
Simply put, mutations + natural selection + time = evolution. That's how. and I will repeat myself one more time , I am referring to ACTIVE ADDED GENES, not any old beneficial mutation) Asking for added genes but denying beneficial mutations is like asking someone to add 2+2 together and denying the answer 4.
The rungs of the DNA 'ladder' are made of 4 different bases - these are often abbreviated as the letters A,C,G, and T. The arrangement of these 4 letters determines our genes. Changes (mutations) are often made in this sequence and these changes in sequence changes our genes. So new genes does not require the appearance of new structures or materials, the reality is it merely requires a change in sequence - and this happens all the time. We are born with 100+ mutations and acquire more over our lifetime. Therefore, new genes are produced all the time. 'New genes' have made certain peoples muscles stronger, reduced fat, or provided high cholesterol tolerance. New genes have provided resistance to AIDS. New genes enabled flavobacterium to digest nylon and apple maggots to digest apples (they used to eat hawthorn). As for how your simple cell acquired a greater amount of genetic material, I think you already accept that mutations can result in increased amount of DNA so what's the problem? LOL you still not getting it! You highlight this fact when you emphasize that a gene can change its form through changes in the four bases. This does not add a gene to the genome. And I explained it so carefully and its such a simple concept. Most beneficial mutations having nothing to do with added genes. They involve destroyed genes. I tried to find your example of e coli fitness and can't find any evidence, have you got any links etc where we can see if its an added gene or alternatively an inactive gene that causes the increased fitness? Beneficial mutations do not contradict creationism in any manner, even increased genes that benefit an organism would not contradict creationism, they would merely provide some evidence for evolution, which is currently lacking. Where is the evidence for an added beneficial gene ? You quoted a creationist source of all sources , and the only articles I can find on that subject show the survival of a mutated organism with one less functional gene than the original, not one more. According to you there is no boundary because you already realize that beneficial mutations (which result in an increase in 'good' genes) does happen
I said no such thing! Misrepresentation!!! LOL ( a misrepresentation is not very good because then you end up arguing against strawmen) You seem to assume that beneficial mutations involve increased genes, in fact they normally involved reduced functionality of genes as per the 3 examples mentioned earlier in the thread (blue eyes, malaria etc). I acknowledged beneficial mutations, but they do not involve an increase in good genes as you incorrectly added. Because you guys are failing to give me examples of the addition of non-retroviral "good genes", it makes the theory of evolution appear to be unsupported by the evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Thu 05/31/12 05:05 PM
|
|
So now science has to prove where God came from and what happened before the big bang. Science can't even cure the common cold, you truly think they could ever figure out what happened before the big bang? If there was in fact a "big bang"... The big bang "theory" is just that, a theory. Nothing more then an educated guess. Not denouncing science one bit, it has brought a lot of good things into this world, just pointing out, it is nevertheless a theory, not a fact. yes, thats what i was saying... i don't believe the big bang theory myself, i think the universe is just a big recycle bin, were suns and worlds get used and reborn in time... thats why it is hard for me to believe in a god/gods... I'll go hypothetical here. Say they do find something in the elementary particles, or atleast say they do. You taking it as fact, is taken on faith unless you did the exact same experiments with the exact same particles as those scientists did/do. Outside of that, you are taking what they tell you on faith. Just another courious question, have you studied this yourself? Found these findings percisely yourself? Or taking what a scientist says on faith? And even if this where true, not saying it's not. It doesn't discount God, just shows the outcome of his creation. And beyond that, just another hypothetical comment. The big bang could very well be true. The scriptures tell us God created the world, but it doesn't go into great detail on how he accomplished this. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
