o_mlly said:

So you have not observed a speciation event but now claim others have.

Click to expand...

I've never observed nuclear fusion in the lab, either. But like macroevolution, scientists have observed it.

o_mlly said:

Certainly words mean things. But words that tell us nothing new are meaningless tautologies.

Click to expand...

"Macroevolution" means the evolution of new species. If that seems meaningless to you, we've located the problem.

Say it aint so said:

FALSE

Russians were literally at Trump Tower working in agreement with the Trump's innermost circle to provide dirt against their opponent.
Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort admitted point blank he was working with Russians provided them campaign data.

Click to expand...

That is false.

Say it aint so said:

I doubt you read it. Honestly I do. If you read the Mueller report you would know "collusion" isn't something found in codes of law seeing he went to painstaking lengths to explain that.

Click to expand...

Oh good grief, not that AGAIN. I know its not a legal code. But I'm not going to explain myself over this word for the umpteenth time.

Say it aint so said:

Russiagate was not a joke. The Trump admin was working directly and indirectly with Russians for the benefit of their campaign.

Click to expand...

That is 100% false.

CoreyD said:

Please, can you please point out what subjective solution is in post #19, and where it says truth is subjective? Thanks.

Click to expand...

It's actually #18, I automatically used 19 because you did. Anyway #18, you say this.

"That is the key. Being able to examine the scriptures, and know the ring of truth, because of seeing it."

That's is subjective.

rjs330 said:

He shared polling data? You call that colluding? We all know he did that. So? Thats not colluding with Russia. He was a business associate. He didn't ask the guy to do anything. He didn't tell him to go to Putin and use that information to interfere with the election. You are wishful thinking.

AI is correct in this one and you are incorrect.

Click to expand...

YES! That is working with Russians. What is Russian going to do with presidential election campaign data? Make Vodka? Did Russia make use of the data? Did the GRU interfere with the election and did Russia implement disinformation data farms for the sake of Trump. Yes, they did.

OnceLostButNowFound said:

To clarify, I was referring to an actual theory from the 60's regarding how whales came to be.

Click to expand...

No. You are probably thinking of mesonychids, carnivorous hoofed mammals. Not wolves.

Mesonychids did appear to have some cetacean traits, but genetics and fossil finds have shown that whales evolved from a different branch of ungulates. Ungulates are a polyphyletic group, with mesonychids not closely related to any group living today.

Servus said:

Oh sure, I have all that on file from 2017-19.

Click to expand...

Well, you seem to be misremembering.

Servus said:

What happened to Donald Trump as a result of Russiagate?

Click to expand...

At least you remember that part.

Servus said:

Do you think anything will happen to Trump if/when all the files are released? If so, then what would you expect to happen?

Click to expand...

Humiliations galore.

rjs330 said:

I actually read it all and followed everything at the time. It sounds like you fully believe in the the hoax. Im not going to change your mind.

No one on rhe Trump team was found to be guilty of colluding with the Russians.
To continue to make the claim they did, is false. It's wishful biased thinking.

Click to expand...

I doubt you read it. Honestly I do. If you read the Mueller report you would know "collusion" isn't something found in codes of law seeing he went to painstaking lengths to explain that.

friend of mine overheard a conversation in the spiritual realm to the effect that:
We (the powers and principalities) don't need a free society to advance the human race any further, we can get the information we need from their dna to identify who can do what.

i mentioned this online somewhere and it gets downvoted: "he didn't hear anything, that's the plot to the movie Gattaca!"

anyhow..
its going to happen, the USA just won't be the first due to moral concerns.

Why is it that God didn't reveal the seventh-day Sabbath command to any other nation? There is no historical indication that the Aztecs, the Aborigines, the Asians, the Celts, and all others were ever instructed to observe rituals given to Israel. Could it be that the seventh-day Sabbath was only for Israel???? I believe we have scriptural evidence that it was only for Old Covenant Israel.

9Rock9 said:

Mytho-history is a theory that claims Genesis should not be understood literallt (or at least not literally in the modern sense.) instead, it is largely a figurative account that expresses important theological truths and to establish Yahweh as the one true God vs the pagan religions of the Ancient World.

Click to expand...

That makes some sense. The literary structure of Genesis 1-3 is polemic. It's an overt rejection of a bits-and-pieces creation by various deities, instead acknowledging one Creator.

The opening chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1, is one of the most debated and cherished texts in the Judeo-Christian tradition. For centuries, it has been read as a straightforward account of God creating the universe in six literal days. However, modern biblical scholarship, informed by ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature and cultural context, suggests a richer, more complex interpretation. Genesis 1 is best understood as a theological polemic against the cosmologies of surrounding nations, a depiction of the cosmos as God’s temple, and a functional rather than material creation account. This interpretation not only aligns with the historical and literary context of the text but also reveals its profound theological purpose: to proclaim the sovereignty of the one true God over creation and to orient humanity toward worship and stewardship.
This article explores these three interpretive lenses—polemic, cosmic temple, and functional creation—while addressing why a literal, material creation reading may miss the text’s deeper intent. By examining the ANE context, the literary structure of Genesis 1, and its theological implications, we will uncover how Genesis 1 communicates timeless truths about God, creation, and humanity’s role in the world.

Job 33:6 said:

And what are your thoughts on how the teledoths noted above do not give history, but continue the story? Such as with Noah's children being born, followed by the story of Noah's ark?

Genesis 5:30-32 ESV
[30] Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. [31] Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died. [32] After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

So we see the historical geneologies leading up to Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth.

Genesis 6:5-8 ESV
[5] The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. [7] So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” [8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Then we see the flood story introduced by wickedness of the world.

Genesis 6:9-14 ESV
[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. [10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

We have our teledoth. And reference to the birth of Noah's sons as in the end of chapter 5.

[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. [12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. [14] Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

Then the story continues into the future. After the sons were born.

So chapter 6 begins where chapter 5 ends. And chapter 6 is a continuation into the future.

Click to expand...

Do you want to bypass Genesis 1, and 2?
No. We will not do that, and run off on a long argument to counter your ideas again J.
Genesis 1:9-13
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed according to [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, according to [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

It's not a continuation. for two reason:

• A historical or genealogical record is from the distant past right up to the present.
• Genesis 2:5, 6 says.... 5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted, for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, by saying that after vegetation and trees... including a fully flourishing Garden, there was no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, because the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Rather, Genesis 2 compliments Genesis 1, by giving a historical account of some of the events that are reported in Genesis 1.

You'll have to work out Genesis 6:9-14, and the others, on your own.
I can see it's difficult for you, but that's due to your thinking.
What can help, is asking questions, rather than forming an idea, when you read something, and than running with that idea, and basing everything else on it.

One good question you can ask yourself, is.
When did Noah walk with God, and have three sons... prior to Genesis 6:9, or subsequent?
If that still does not correct your thinking, then asking me to do that... I'll have an even harder time.
I had an experience with a strong-willed person, and I can tell you, it's one of he hardest things for me to have a conversation with that person.

Say it aint so said:

Exclusive: Paul Manafort admits he passed Trump campaign data to a suspected Russian asset​

In an interview with Insider, Paul Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign chairman, made his first public admission that in 2016 he shared polling data from the Trump campaign with Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime business associate with suspected ties to Russian intelligence.​

AI is NOT the best source of information. In fact since you seem to think this the barometer of reality, I asked AI why it's not the best source. For your viewing pleasure.

While AI can be a powerful tool for information retrieval and analysis, it has significant limitations. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Lack of Understanding: AI systems generate responses based on patterns in data rather than true comprehension. This means they can produce misleading or inaccurate information, often referred to as "hallucinations" 1.
2. Bias and Fairness Issues: AI models can inherit biases present in their training data, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes 2 1. This is particularly concerning in sensitive applications like hiring or law enforcement.
3. Dependence on Data Quality: The effectiveness of AI is heavily reliant on the quality and quantity of the data it is trained on. Poor data can lead to poor performance 3 2.
4. Transparency Challenges: Many AI systems operate as "black boxes," making it difficult to understand how they arrive at specific conclusions. This lack of transparency can erode trust 2.
5. Ethical and Moral Limitations: AI lacks the ability to make ethical decisions or understand human emotions, which can be crucial in many contexts 3 2.

In summary, while AI can assist in gathering and processing information, it should not be relied upon as the sole source of truth. Critical thinking and human oversight remain essential in evaluating the information provided by AI systems.

Click to expand...

He shared polling data? You call that colluding? We all know he did that. So? Thats not colluding with Russia. He was a business associate. He didn't ask the guy to do anything. He didn't tell him to go to Putin and use that information to interfere with the election. You are wishful thinking.

AI is correct in this one and you are incorrect.

camille70 said:

Citation needed that he distanced himself for any reason, let alone the ones stated.

This has been discussed repeatedly. There was a grandfather clause in the ACA and Obama thought it would protect existing plans. He was wrong and has said as much. He did not intentionally mislead anyone.

You can thank Marco Rubio and the GOP for eliminating Risk Corridors for the higher pricing.

Healthcare costs rise yearly. They have risen at a slower rate since the ACA was passed than in the years before. I and other posters have repeatedly pointed that out but you keep repeating that lie.

Give it a year. If the funding for the ACA and medicare/Medicaid aren't put back, everyone's healthcare will rise and many more hospitals will close in the most vulnerable counties in the most vulnerable states. On the plus side, we may get government run/non profit/ single payer hospitals anyway if the government has to step in to provide services in areas private hospitals have walked away from due to costs. Hopefully medicare won't see even further cuts due to budget sequestration rules. We will see.

Click to expand...

Presenting statistics or discussing the implications for health care does not seem to engage their interest. Currently, today's conservatives appear to have limited concern for health care policy; instead, their primary motivation seems to be opposition to the Affordable Care Act because it was enacted by Democrats.

Conservatives and liberals in the United States have historically proposed different approaches to health care reform. Both groups have introduced plans aimed at reducing health care costs and increasing affordability. For instance, when First Lady Hillary Clinton suggested universal health care, Newt Gingrich responded with an alternative proposal. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Vice President Gore supported a government-funded universal health care plan, while Governor Bush advocated for a market-based approach involving existing insurance companies. Proposals reflecting these differing philosophies also appeared in the 2004 presidential campaign. In the 2008 election, John McCain promoted a free-market solution aligned with conservative principles, whereas Senator Obama supported a single-payer system.

Democrats and Republicans have long disagreed over the health care system, but both sides proposed ways to make health care affordable.

However, after the ACA was implemented, the GOP largely abandoned health care reform and focused on dismantling the ACA. From 2010 to 2016, the GOP-led Congress attempted to repeal the ACA 42 times without proposing an alternative solution.

During the 2012 presidential primary, there were no alternative health care proposals as seen in other primaries. GOP candidates mainly pledged to dismantle the ACA and criticized Mitt Romney's Massachusetts program. Romney also distanced himself from his own state's healthcare plan.

Since then, the GOP has abandoned any healthcare plans entirely and instead focuses on criticizing President Obama’s comments like “you can keep your doctor” or “your insurance premium will not go up.” In other words, they offer only criticism.

Say it aint so said:

You are woefully misinformed. It is readily apparent to me you did not read the Senate Report, the Inspector Generals report, the Mueller report, or heck, even the Durham report. You're just sticking finger in the air and winging it. It wears badly on you.

Click to expand...

I actually read it all and followed everything at the time. It sounds like you fully believe in the the hoax. Im not going to change your mind.

No one on rhe Trump team was found to be guilty of colluding with the Russians.
To continue to make the claim they did, is false. It's wishful biased thinking.

The concept of repairing a defective gene in sperm or eggs is not intrinsically bad. But there are some huge issues, and they aren't merely ethical or moral (as important as those issues are). We aren't smart enough to know what such tinkering could cause. "Repairing" alleles that cause genetic disorders might well lower population intelligence, for example.

We should proceed very slowly, and learn from animal studies.

stevevw said:

The Intentional Use of Sound Design in the Egyptian Temples and the Great Pyramid
https://www.scienceopen.com/documen...-e6f916b4c59a/ScienceOpen/247_Smith_EVA23.pdf

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting paper but it seems to have nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand. Why did you post it?

essentialsaltes said:

Or a source, or any argument that this factoid has any relevance.

Click to expand...

Rebuttal by AI while not even providing the link seems to be a form or argument for too many here.

rjs330 said:

From AI

While Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was involved in various legal issues related to financial crimes and lobbying, the investigations did not conclusively prove that he colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. The Mueller report indicated that while there were numerous links between Trump associates and Russian officials, it did not establish that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government to influence the election.

You shouldn't spread misinformation.

Click to expand...

Exclusive: Paul Manafort admits he passed Trump campaign data to a suspected Russian asset​

AI is NOT the best source of information. In fact since you seem to think this the barometer of reality, I asked AI why it's not the best source. For your viewing pleasure.

While AI can be a powerful tool for information retrieval and analysis, it has significant limitations. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Lack of Understanding: AI systems generate responses based on patterns in data rather than true comprehension. This means they can produce misleading or inaccurate information, often referred to as "hallucinations" 1.
2. Bias and Fairness Issues: AI models can inherit biases present in their training data, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes 2 1. This is particularly concerning in sensitive applications like hiring or law enforcement.
3. Dependence on Data Quality: The effectiveness of AI is heavily reliant on the quality and quantity of the data it is trained on. Poor data can lead to poor performance 3 2.
4. Transparency Challenges: Many AI systems operate as "black boxes," making it difficult to understand how they arrive at specific conclusions. This lack of transparency can erode trust 2.
5. Ethical and Moral Limitations: AI lacks the ability to make ethical decisions or understand human emotions, which can be crucial in many contexts 3 2.

In summary, while AI can assist in gathering and processing information, it should not be relied upon as the sole source of truth. Critical thinking and human oversight remain essential in evaluating the information provided by AI systems.

Say it aint so said:

Kind of odd that was omitted.

Click to expand...

Or a source, or any argument that this factoid has any relevance.