China's Wuhan shuts down transport as global alarm mounts over virus spread - Page 135 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15093969
Drlee wrote:So can you tell me why you are ignoring the 18,000 documented lies that Trump has publicly put out there in the past three years and you are looking for one lie on the part of "liberals"?

BTW My name got left out of the quote.

Have you been through the 18000 claimed lies your self? First off politics is not one of my vocations, it is not one of my responsibilities, I am under no obligation to produce any kind of balance. I direct my political energies as takes my fancy in the moment.

But really if there are supposedly 18000 documented lies by Donald Trump, why are so many Liberals attempting to gas light us, by condemning Trump for saying something he didn't say. I asked the question, just to check that there wasn't some footage out there where Donald had said what so many Liberals are claiming he said.

But thirdly I do hold the right to account and attack their inconsistency and hypocrisy. For example "States Rights"ists who don't denounce DOMA. "Constitutionalists" who don't denounce incorporation. I have repeatedly asked Libertarians where the long promised hyper inflation is?
#15093990
Godstud wrote:You are being willfully ignorant, @Rich. No one but you can fix that.


Trump Is Lying More Than Ever: Just Look At The Data
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarko ... 2a60071e17

That is just made up data. It means nothing since the so-called lies aren't really specified and is only opinions without objective proof.
#15093999
Even if I did, you'd glance at, call it fake news, and dismiss it, because it might destroy your belief in Trump, your false god.

The same applies to some stupid religious people when science threatens their literal interpretations. You know how that works, since you do it all the time. :moron:
#15094008
Godstud wrote:Even if I did, you'd glance at, call it fake news, and dismiss it, because it might destroy your belief in Trump, your false god.

The same applies to some stupid religious people when science threatens their literal interpretations. You know how that works, since you do it all the time.

I believe in real science, but what you often call science is nothing more than pseudoscience at best and lies at worse.
#15094016
Godstud wrote:Real science is the Theory of Evolution. So please tell me you support that, and I might believe you.

The Theory of Evolution and Darwinism is basically pseudoscience.

As you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.” The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience. Yet regardless of how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”

http://rationalfaith.com/2016/05/evolut ... doscience/
#15094022
Godstud wrote:Right. :lol:

You can't even post anything scientific to refute it. instead you go to your religious propaganda site where they don't even understand the science, let alone scientific method. Fail!!

:knife:

You couldn't have read it that quick, so obviously you don't want to know truth from fiction. You are only interested in supporting your atheist belief.
#15094024
I don't need to read it when you drag it off a religious site. It's quite obvious what it is, and even the diagram was complete rubbish, and obviously so. They don't know what Scientific Method is. It's lies meant to support a literal interpretation of the Bible, for fundamentalists.

rationalfaith.com is not an unbiased site. It's a religious site. :lol:

Here. From the Smithsonian:
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Science has nothing to do with religion, or lack thereof. Atheism is not a belief. A little education for you would go a long ways, but it's probably too late to teach an old dog new tricks.
#15094029
@Rich But thirdly I do hold the right to account and attack their inconsistency and hypocrisy. For example "States Rights"ists who don't denounce DOMA. "Constitutionalists" who don't denounce incorporation. I have repeatedly asked Libertarians where the long promised hyper inflation is?


If you want to talk about these issues you will get no argument from me. You know from my previous posts that I am strongly aligned with the concept of state and local control. For example, I would abolish the Department of Education. It was only created to assert, through monetary incentive, control by the feds over local schools. DOMA is no longer important since the SCOTUS decision about same sex marriage. Libertarians are idiots of the first order. I wish the schools would stop making Ayn Rand mandatory reading. She was an odious bitch.



@Hindsite That is just made up data. It means nothing since the so-called lies aren't really specified and is only opinions without objective proof.


Can you believe it Godstud. Hindsite just dismissed Forbes. Maybe he considers it left wing media. You know. Like the Wall Street Journal. :lol:

But then he is just a bot.


You couldn't have read it that quick, so obviously you don't want to know truth from fiction. You are only interested in supporting your atheist belief.


I am a Christian. I am a scientist. I don't believe in evolution. I know it to be settled science. One does not "believe" two and two equals four. One knows it as a fact. My God is not as limited as yours. My God is elegant and subtle. He is the "still small voice". I see God's fingerprints in evolution. I see it as just another way for Him to make his creation all work toward whatever end (if any) he wishes.

I do not read scientific books to understand the nature of God. I do not read religious books to understand science. They are two different things. Besides. God challenges us not to try to "prove" He exists. He calls us to take it as a matter of faith.... And to behave toward our fellow people in a particularly kind and compassionate way.

Jesus' message about care and compassion is not ambiguous at all. He did not stutter nor stray from the message. Sadly Trump and my poor Republican Party have turned their backs on the poor, the oppressed, the stranger in our land. That is decidedly UN-Christian.

I find it odd that you harangue Godstud for what you call his atheism and at the same time use as your sig a quote from a famous atheist. You are confused.


@Godstud Atheism is a belief. It demands proof of something that defies proof. Speaking only for Judaeo-Christian faiths, as I just pointed out to Hindsite, we are not called to prove for God. In fact to try to do so is heresy. That is why my faith is offended by scientists trying to prove the Bible. My God told me not to. Immature Christians frequently make this mistake. They seek a legalistic roadmap to salvation. This is common among neophytes of all faiths. I would tell you it is common among new atheists. They start out with a very doctrinaire denial of any possibility of a God and eventually move to where you are...That there may be one but that you see no evidence and in the absence of evidence choose not to believe that He/She actually exists. Right?
#15094032
@Drlee I don't believe. That's all. I know there's no proof, either way, and I don't expect it.

Science and religion are two entirely different things. I don't look in the Bible to find out what temperature water boils at, and I don't check a science text to find out about how we should treat our fellow man.
#15094049
Drlee wrote:Can you believe it Godstud. Hindsite just dismissed Forbes. Maybe he considers it left wing media. You know. Like the Wall Street Journal. :lol:

But then he is just a bot.

You apparently did not know that Forbes has changed hands. I am not dismissing Forbes as a whole, but the article Godstud quoted is mainly opinion with made-up so-called data. It is nothing but nonsense with no proof.

Drlee wrote:Jesus' message about care and compassion is not ambiguous at all. He did not stutter nor stray from the message. Sadly Trump and my poor Republican Party have turned their backs on the poor, the oppressed, the stranger in our land. That is decidedly UN-Christian.

I believe you are wrong on the above point. I certainly don't see it that way and I am also a Christian.

Drlee wrote:I find it odd that you harangue Godstud for what you call his atheism and at the same time use as your sig a quote from a famous atheist. You are confused.

I call it his atheism because he several times admitted he was an atheist and did not believe in God or any god of any religion. So I was simply bringing up the truth to expose him for his bias.

Albert Einstein has stated publicly that he was agnostic. The idea Einstein was an atheist is a lie put out by atheist so they can claim a famous scientist as being one of them.

Albert Einstein's Quote on Being Agnostic
#15094109
You do realize Hindsite that the video you posted shows that Einstein, Agnostic or atheist, take your pick, utterly rejecting the very principles that you and I embrace. I find it unsettling that you believe that a comment by a person who utterly rejects Jesus and his message is appropriate for your sig. But then there are a great many Christian principles that you reject.
#15094115
Drlee wrote:a person who utterly rejects Jesus and his message


Einstein didn't "utterly rejects Jesus and his message", he fully embraced both the figure and the teachings of Jesus:

Einstein was then asked to what extent he was influenced by Christianity. "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

In his 1934 book The World as I See It he expressed his belief that "if one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."

In the last year of his life he said "If I were not a Jew I would be a Quaker."
#15094123
Drlee wrote:You do realize Hindsite that the video you posted shows that Einstein, Agnostic or atheist, take your pick, utterly rejecting the very principles that you and I embrace. I find it unsettling that you believe that a comment by a person who utterly rejects Jesus and his message is appropriate for your sig. But then there are a great many Christian principles that you reject.

I don't know what Christian principles you are referring to. But I admit I do reject much of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church since I am a Protestant. The signature seems to fit what I believed a scientist open to the truth would say the more he learned about the truth in real science knowledge and putting aside the pseudoscience of Darwinian Evolution.
#15094124
Scientists are open to science. Religion is not science.

You don't talk to a philosophy major if you are ill, you seek a practitioner of science as it relates to the human body(i.e. a doctor). When you get treated by said doctor, you don't ask him his religion, because it is not relevant. It's got to do with facts and knowledge, and not "deeper truths" or other such bullshit.

Trying to apply religion to science, as you do ALL THE TIME, @Hindsite is about as monumentally stupid as you can get.

If you want to talk about why we're here, you consult religion. Religion is there for the questions that science cannot answer.

If you are talking about how you got here, you consult science(eg. biology, genetics, reproduction).

Science isn't trying to be religious. It can't be. People from a certain religion are not prone to specific illnesses, and there is no measurable result of a person's faith, or lack thereof.

Religions, however, are trying to butt into science, and with ridiculously dumb results. eg. Creationism/Intelligent Design. While doing so, they use pseudoscience to deny scientific facts, fail to use scientific method to support any claims, fail to use peer review, etc. In other words, Junk Science.

Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of scientific data and that's why it's in the Smithsonian Institute, and all the major scientific and learning institutes of the world.

Now, being the person that you are, you will now say that it's "just a theory", but that is only further proof of a bad education and not knowing that a scientific theory isn't the same as another theory.

For you. It's never too late to learn something new.
Image


PS: If your religion is interfering with science or vice versa, then you aren't doing it right.
#15094130
Godstud wrote:Scientists are open to science. Religion is not science.

You don't talk to a philosophy major if you are ill, you seek a practitioner of science as it relates to the human body(i.e. a doctor). When you get treated by said doctor, you don't ask him his religion, because it is not relevant. It's got to do with facts and knowledge, and not "deeper truths" or other such bullshit.

Trying to apply religion to science, as you do ALL THE TIME, @Hindsite is about as monumentally stupid as you can get.

If you want to talk about why we're here, you consult religion.

If you are talking about how you got here, you consult science(eg. biology, genetics, reproduction).

Science isn't trying to be religious. It can't be. People from a certain religion are not prone to specific illnesses, and there is no measurable result of a person's faith, or lack thereof.

Religions, however, are trying to butt into science, and with ridiculously dumb results. eg. Creationism/Intelligent Design. While doing so, they use pseudoscience to deny scientific facts, as fail to use scientific method to support any claims, peer review, etc.

Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of scientific data and that's why it's in the Smithsonian Institute, and all the major scientific and learning institutes of the world.

Now, being the person that you are, you will now say that it's "just a theory", but that is only further proof of a bad education and now knowing that a scientific theory isn't the same as another theory.

For you. It's never too late to learn something new.

Maybe it is not too late for you to learn something new. Genesis in the Holy Bible tells us how we got here from God himself. We got here through an act of creation by God. Science doesn't tell how we got here. All it does is make speculations. Another thing you need to learn is that there are two main types of evolution that have been named Micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

I can agree that there is a lot of evidence for micro-evolution, which is small variation and changes during reproduction, basically like selective breeding of horses and dogs, but without the aid of human direction. Micro-evolution also agrees with the Genesis account of creation and reproduction after their kind. A dog or horse can change to a different breed, but a dog can not change to a horse.

Macro-evolution is large scale changes that makes the theory of evolution a pseudoscience, since a dog has never been seen to change to a horse, for example. The scientific method includes observation and macro-evolution has never been observed. It is a belief that fish changed to amphibians and to reptiles and mammals and to man. As you have pointed out belief is not science. So for me to believe what God said about his creation is just as valid as your so-called evolutionist belief. I choose to believe God, while you choose to believe man.
  • 1
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
Election 2020

It is preposterous to blame governors. Blue or re[…]

@wat0n Yes, I said that. I pointed out that[…]

@wat0n 1. The cop should be penalised for dro[…]

And there you go on blathering. I certainly said […]