Answers

suarez9

Gotquestions.org great site to answer all your questions

Turtwig

Pathetic website filled with ignorance.

Fullofcrapanswers wrote:

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”

CerebralCortex

suarez9 wrote: »

Gotquestions.org great site to answer all your questions

I didn't ask any questions.

TheGodBen

suarez9 wrote: »

Gotquestions.org great site to answer all your questions

I asked it "What kind of idiot buys this crap?" and it went off an a tangent about a woman from Proverbs 31. So no, it did not answer any of my questions.

robindch

suarez9 wrote: »

Gotquestions.org great site to answer all your questions

Didn't tell me why anybody would want to read it, though I asked my monitor loudly and clearly.

Is the website broken?

optogirl

suarez9 wrote: »

Gotquestions.org great site to answer all your questions

This is not a great site, nor does it answer all (or any) of my questions. It is quite offensive to an atheist actually so please keep your mumbo jumbo for the christian threads

wonderfulname

Curiously lazy version of bible bashing... why do religious people always assume we are merely ignorant of their point of view? I'm not, its precisely why I disagree with it.

Aldebaran

Here is a great site that I use to answer all my questions.

MagicMarker

robindch wrote: »

Didn't tell me why anybody would want to read it, though I asked my monitor loudly and clearly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUE6FVK1zJE

i asked what wednesday's lotto numbers were but

Author: Moses was the author of the Book of Numbers.

Date of Writing: The Book of Numbers was written between 1440 and 1400 B.C.

"cool story bro"

CiaranMT

This page is a case in point of the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrO6LJyhII

Excerpt:

Got Questions wrote:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

First, it is important to recognize the preceding context. Deuteronomy 22:22 commands the death penalty for adultery; both the man and the woman are to be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 commands the death penalty for both the man and the woman in an instance of a man having sex with a woman who is betrothed (engaged). It seems to be speaking of consensual sex, since the woman does not cry out for help. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 seemingly commands the death penalty for a man who “rapes” a woman who is betrothed.

_GOD_

its 42

kylith

Couldn't tell me where my keys are, very disappointed.

Sarky

That site couldn't tell me how to breed an army of half-human-half-shark monsters with which to rule the world from atop a mountain of my slain enemies. Well, the Old Testament came close, only without the sharkmen. I guess it's back to science for me.

Galvasean

These bombing runs are getting more frequent... but less thought provoking.

bnt

Not so much a bombing run as a drive-by spit-balling. Reminds me of that time in Cork when someone threw an egg at me - and it just bounced off my coat without breaking.

PS: if I want "Answers", I listen to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSdxh59UZDA

Zillah

I asked it "Why does God suck?", and it actually suggested a number of pages about why God allows evil, natural disasters and tyrants. I'm guessing the contents of those pages are ludicous but as a search engine it appears to have been successful.

TwoShedsJackson

robindch wrote: »

Didn't tell me why anybody would want to read it, though I asked my monitor loudly and clearly.

Is the website broken?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19BWJQ8kjrw

CerebralCortex

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19BWJQ8kjrw

Another reasons in the long list of why I hate Star Trek.

MagicMarker

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Another reasons in the long list of why I hate Star Trek.

How can you be an atheist and not like Star Trek? All atheists like Star Trek.....

CerebralCortex

MagicMarker wrote: »

How can you be an atheist and not like Star Trek? All atheists like Star Trek.....

Because it's immature nonsense and because I've seen actual good/great sci-fi like Blade Runner and Space Odyssey. All Star Trek is is space opera and Star Wars beats the **** out of it in that respect.

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because it's immature nonsense and because I've seen actual good/great sci-fi like Blade Runner and Space Odyssey. All Star Trek is is space opera and Star Wars beats the **** out of it in that respect.

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

All Star Trek is is space opera and Star Wars beats the **** out of it in that respect.

Have you watched all of Star Trek? Have you ever met Captain Picard? :pac:

William Shatner looks like Lawrence Olivier compared to the acting in Star Wars.

BLASPHEMY!

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

Have you watched all of Star Trek? Have you ever met Captain Picard? :pac:

William Shatner looks like Lawrence Olivier compared to the acting in Star Wars.

BLASPHEMY!

Picard brought the sanctimoniousness to even higher levels. And for the record Patrick Stewart is the an acting GOD no dispute there.

Dades

Of course every real trekkie knows it's Chief O'Brien who really pulls the strings from down in Transporter Room 1.

TheGodBen

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because it's immature nonsense and because I've seen actual good/great sci-fi like Blade Runner and Space Odyssey. All Star Trek is is space opera and Star Wars beats the **** out of it in that respect.

Sir, you have disrespected my religion (The First church of Trek) and if you do not withdraw your remarks I shall have to behead you.

Honestly, I expect more respect for people's sacred beliefs in an atheist forum! :mad:

Star trek is great :mad:

This does make me laugh though:
http://ufies.org/txt/startrek.html

Hobbes

suarez9 wrote: »

Gotquestions.org great site to answer all your questions

Great site? o_O

"Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?" Answer: There are no good people.

and.. "Atheism cannot be proven". Well yea, you can't prove a negative :rolleyes:

liamw

I've never watched Star Wars, Space Odyssey, or Blade Runner. Hate sci-fi.

CerebralCortex

liamw wrote: »

I've never watched Star Wars, Space Odyssey, or Blade Runner. Hate sci-fi.

1. Sci-Fi in general is ****!
2. Star Wars isn't sci-fi it's space opera.
3. Blade Runner is awesome.

Beruthiel

I no longer like you CC.

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

1. Sci-Fi in general is ****!
2. Star Wars isn't sci-fi it's space opera.
3. Blade Runner is awesome.

1. Perhaps true but it does produce some gems. Sunshine is a pretty recent one.
2. Best Space Opera ever.
3. Indeed.

The Mad Hatter

CerebralCortex wrote: »

1. Sci-Fi in general is ****!
2. Star Wars isn't sci-fi it's space opera.
3. Blade Runner is awesome.

I wouldn't even call Star Wars space opera. In terms of genre tropes, it's fantasy, just in a sci-fi-like setting.

Turtwig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I wouldn't even call Star Wars space opera. In terms of genre tropes, it's fantasy, just in a sci-fi-like setting.

Burn in a fiery pit!
Ahem, in a fiery pit, burn you!!:mad:

Dades

Starship Troopers?

(There's a divisive one )

The Mad Hatter

Malty_T wrote: »

Burn in a fiery pit!
Ahem, in a fiery pit, burn you!!:mad:

Are you objecting because you don't like fantasy, or because you think I think it's bad? I wouldn't really call anything sci-fi unless it used science and technology in some way integral to the plot, so many of my favourite "sci-fi setting" type shows and films (Serenity, Battlestar Galactica, Doctor Who) I wouldn't call sci-fi at all.

Dades wrote: »

Starship Troopers?

(There's a divisive one )

Same thing - it's an action/war movie. The facts that the enemy are bugs, and that the soldiers use high-tech weaponry, doesn't have any real bearing.

I'd call cylons technology central to the plot :pac:
dr who is a bit more borderline but if i had to put a label i'd still say scifi

thebman

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I wouldn't even call Star Wars space opera. In terms of genre tropes, it's fantasy, just in a sci-fi-like setting.

I consider Start Wars to be World War 2 in space!!

Star Trek is the Un in space!!

Neither is really all that fantastic to me and I didn't try this thing.

Did find this link in my RSS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926

I stick by my choice :P

jill_valentine

bnt wrote: »

Not so much a bombing run as a drive-by spit-balling. Reminds me of that time in Cork when someone threw an egg at me - and it just bounced off my coat without breaking.

I don't want to be too hasty about this, because it would necessitate some pretty massive upheaval for my worldview, but this sounds like nothing short of a miracle.

biko

OP has started three threads, all about some Christian sites, with a one sentence teaser.
I refuse to engage in conversation with some online holy spammer.

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd call cylons technology central to the plot :pac:

Would you, though? The whole point of the cylons is that they're indistinguishable from humans. They've just got an "otherness" that we can't detect in any way, and that eventually is realised to be a meaningless difference.

thebman wrote: »

I consider Start Wars to be World War 2 in space!!

Star Wars is Lord of the Rings in space!

Seriously, though, think about it. The whole film is made of fantasy and epic genre tropes: the young, naive hero who turns out to be a sort of "chosen one", a vast, evil empire seeming to be under the sway of a dark leader, but really under a darker, more powerful one, the hero's journey of discovery of the world and of himself. The Star Wars universe has ghosts, sorceresses and magic.

Also bear in mind that the biggest complaint about the new Star Wars trilogy (well, perhaps aside from the lack of a plot or interesting characters) was the introduction of the idea of midichlorians as an explanation of how the Force works. but that's a perfectly acceptable sic-fi explanation of religion - it just doesn't fly in a fantasy film.

Yes MH, i would! They are still technology, albeit very human-like - but then that's really advanced tech for you. Funny how all these movies/shows end up with machines wanting to look like people - sg1, terminator, bsg, &c

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

Starship Troopers?

(There's a divisive one )

Oh the purist of nonsense! But tremendously fun.

CerebralCortex

Urgh! I hate BSG!

mewso

CC if you really hate Star Trek I think you might like Star Trek.

The Mad Hatter

mewso wrote: »

CC if you really hate Star Trek I think you might like Star Trek.

That was such an overrated film - and it was just another Star Trek film.

Bluewolf: I've to run off, but I'll reply this evening if I can. (This is something I take much too seriously.:P)

Zillah

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Urgh! I hate BSG!

You're dead to me.

Bsg IS serious business!

mewso

bluewolf wrote: »

Bsg IS serious business!

One of the best.

Sarky

I preferred the original series tbh

krudler

Sarky wrote: »

I preferred the original series tbh

the naff Star Wars ripoff? it was great as a kid but its cringe inducing to watch now.