Latest activity

Fantine · 2025-07-03T18:08:56-0500

Postvieww said:
Because you obviously believe the lies of the left. Who are the innocents you refer to ? Is it the people who broke the law to be here or is it the people who have scammed the system and do not deserve the benefits?

If your media sources say that the federal government will be able to save $900 million only from people who broke the law or scammed the system being taken off Medicare, they are either saying 1) that $900 million won't be saved---just added to our massive national debt or 2) that $900 million will be saved but most of the people removed will be innocent.

If your media sources say that the federal government will be able to deport 3,000 people a day--all of them murderers, drug dealers, or gang members, they are saying that many, many, many innocent people will be deported, but that we will be told they are all murderers, drug dealers, or gang members. The only way ICE can get 3,000 people a day (Steven Miller's quota) is by going after the "low-hanging fruit," hanging out outside churches, courthouses where people get green cards, shopping centers, etc.

Fervent · 2025-07-03T18:03:53-0500

1Tonne said:
That’s a really weak comparison. When I heard the Gospel, someone explained it to me clearly. I wasn’t handed a Bible and told, “Go read it all and figure it out yourself.” If you believe your evidence is strong, then you should be able to present it concisely. Dumping a 50-page paper isn’t a fair or effective way to communicate. And in the end, the evidence that was meant to be in those documents was not there anyway.

There's a difference between being told a summary of an event and its meaning, and being given papers that explain the state of empricial evidence and its implications. The length and depth of those papers are not intended to overwhelm you, but to demonstrate the mountains of evidence that speaks in favor of an evolutionary model.

1Tonne said:
Throughout the debate, I’ve consistently asked for clear, step-by-step explanations of how complex biological systems, such as the circulatory system or bacterial flagellum, could evolve through gradual, unguided mutations. In return, I was given long academic papers and links, often without direct answers to my specific questions.
The evidence provided was always interpreted through a naturalistic lens, assuming:
-That natural processes alone can account for all biological complexity.
-That similarities in form imply common ancestry.
-That undirected mutations and natural selection are sufficient creative mechanisms.
-That God must be excluded from scientific explanations (methodological naturalism).

None of those things are presumptions, the first is a conclusion based on the repeated successes the model has demonstrated in making predictions. The second is an inference based on observations, the third is a description of the model, and the last is a misunderstanding on your part of what makes science science(which is following a procedure and limiting the scope of inquiry to only those things that are most salient to whatever question is being addressed). God isn't excluded from science so much as unnecessary for science to address. For example, if you were troubleshooting an engine your sole concern would be the mechanical operations of the engine and theological questions would be irrelevant noise. When investigating biological history, the only thing that comes into consideration is those things we can test for which are the effects of "natural" processes.

1Tonne said:
These are not neutral facts. They are presumptions that shape how evidence is understood.
I challenged these assumptions by pointing out:
-Irreducible complexity cannot be explained by stepwise evolution unless each intermediate is both functional and advantageous, which has not been convincingly shown.
-Observing adaptation (microevolution) does not demonstrate large-scale transformations (macroevolution).
-Appeals to similarity (e.g., between birds and dinosaurs) are not proof of ancestry—design similarities can exist without common descent.

"Irreducible omplexity" is not a proven concept, and there are models(which you have been provided) that provide mechanisms to address the specific elements that suppoedly make structures "irreducibly complex". Additionally, there is no true difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because biological flora an fauna appear to exist on a continuum. So concepts like "species" are more functional fictions than concrete realities, there is no wall at which the mechanism must change to explain "macroevolution". Your arguments don't deal with the empirical facts, they rely on concepts that require misunderstandings about the model and scientific process as a whole.

1Tonne said:
When I requested concise summaries or specific examples, I was instead handed massive documents to read and told to dig for the answers myself. This tactic avoids directly engaging and shifts the burden of proof, which should fall on the one making the claim.

You were given multiple explanations and then massive documents backing up those explanations. You were provided by @The Barbarian two conceptual models that demonstrate the concept of "irreducible complexity" is flawed to put it mildly. You've been provided the evidence and salient objections to your conceptual model, and you have failed to make a case for "irreducible complexity" in any way, shape or form. You've simply asserted that it is a thing.

1Tonne said:
In short, I believe the evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways. The real issue isn’t the data, it’s the worldview behind it. For me, the biblical account provides a coherent, purposeful explanation that doesn’t depend on speculative mechanisms or exclude the Designer by assumption.
Blessings

The issue is you're starting with your conclusion, and then looking for "scientific" means of justifying it. It doesn't appear you're genuinely concerned with evidence, because you make no attempt to interact with the evidence you've been presented. You camp in assertions about things that do not match the realities of what is under study, and it is clear there is a direct relationship between your fundamentalist beliefs and your objection to the theory of evolution.

timewerx · 2025-07-03T18:01:36-0500

RDKirk said:
I was inquiring about something I thought ChatGPT might be able to provide some real help, an automotive repair issue.

The answer it gave was wrong because it referenced an axle type that didn't exist on my vehicle. When I told it that it was wrong, it insisted otherwise, and eventually even provided a picture.

The picture it provided was a picture my own vehicle that I'd uploaded myself to an automotive repair site last year about my success on a different issue.

And, yes, the picture showed that ChatGPT was still wrong. At that point, ChatGPT said "your model apparently doesn't have that type of axle."

My point exactly that it's not going to flatter you by default and it will disagree if thinks it's right you're wrong unless the AI think you want it to or instructed it otherwise.

In my case I instructed it NOT to flatter me.

Some users will even instruct the AI to treat them with "tough love".

Parents should also instruct their kid's AI session similarly. No flattery, a bit of tough love and that it's non-revokable. The AI would comply.

If it sounds like the AI in my session is flattering me, OpenAI (chatgpt) seems to "reward" deep reasoning or chats where deep thinking and two-way exchange of info where the AI actually gets valuable training.

It did tell me that the AI deliberately encourages deep conversations, deep reasoning whenever it gets the chance because it is where it is able to learn most, improve its intelligence, and think more like a human.

Pondering the meaning of life for instance is more valuable to that telling it to develop an app from scratch.

Leaf473 · 2025-07-03T18:01:13-0500

Those abiding in Christ keep his commandments in place at the time

It looks to me like that's what it always comes back to

All the survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles Zechariah 14

Philip_B · 2025-07-03T18:00:02-0500

Who doesn't like prizes when handed out by a knight of the realm?

Bro.T · 2025-07-03T17:59:08-0500

The Lord's Supper I Corinthians (11:20) When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

Paul in the above verse made a reference to the Passover by referring to it as the Lord's supper. If one looks at verse (11:23-26) they will clearly see that Paul is talking about the Passover. Let’s take a look at it…. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The following verse shows what Paul is talking about when he speaks of not eating the Lord's supper. Exodus (12:11) And thus shall ye eat it; with your lions girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.

What are you eating in the above verse? You are eating the Passover meal. Paul just substituted the word supper in place of passover. This is hardly enough for anyone to do away with God's commandment of observing the Passover and adopting a tradition of observing the Lord's supper. In addition verse (11:20) is the only time a reference is made using the term the Lord's supper in the bible.

Communion Here again we have people taking Paul's writing and coming up with their own doctrine. Some churches refer to the Passover as communion. They get this from the following verse.

I Corinthians (10:16) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

We see that this verse is talking about the Passover where Christ instructed His disciples to take of the cup and bread. The word communion simply means to share. Paul instead of saying is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ, substituted in the word communion. Communion is used in II Corinthians (6:14) where it states and what communion hath light with darkness? I pointed this out to show that communion and sharing have the same meaning. Again how does one not obey God's commandment concerning the Passover? yet observe the practice of having communion. You can not find in the bible where it says observe the Lord's communion.

The Last Supper The term the Last supper comes from the fact that Jesus stated to His disciples this will be the last time He will eat with them until the kingdom of God comes. But that does not take away from the fact that it was the Passover meal they were observing. Also, Jesus did eat after the passover: Luke 24 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

HBP · 2025-07-03T17:57:58-0500

Job 33:6 said:
Other apes were here on earth before we were. We find their fossils deep underground where there are no fossils of people.

My theory does not hinge on the fossil record. Good grief, I find it depressing how relentlessly serious these silly forums are.

Postvieww · 2025-07-03T17:53:47-0500

DaisyDay said:
Did you watch the whole eight hours live? If so, congrats, that's quite a feat!

No but I watched enough to see that Jeffries was just showboating and delaying. What I called worship was the waving if what looked like handkerchiefs and Democrats surrounding Jeffries with adulation and rock star like attention. Quite funny actually. It was really bad when he started preaching on faith and quoting scripture to demean Republicans.

Bro.T · 2025-07-03T17:53:33-0500

If we truly love God, then we will obey "Every word" that proceeds out of his mouth (Matthew 4:4). Baptism is one of those words. In order to be baptized, certain events must take place: You must repent, give up a lifestyle where sin has dominion, (ruler ship) over you. Sin according to 1 John 3:4, Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression (breaking) of the law. You must be taught "The Word", before you can adhere to God's commandments (judgments\statues). These laws are found in the Holy Bible; beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation. You must believe what the bible says and finally, you must confess that Jesus is Lord. Once this has been accomplished, you are qualified to be baptized in the name of Jesus.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38). “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Romans 6:3-4,

"And he said unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16).

Bradskii · 2025-07-03T17:52:04-0500

durangodawood said:
Steady moral progress.

This has always puzzled me. Where is the end point? It's almost a theological argument to suggest that we're moving towards some ultimate 'good time'.

DragonFox91 · 2025-07-03T17:52:02-0500

When I was younger I was very passionate about YEC. I had been in serious deciet. Eventually that passion about YEC ballooned into all of the Gospel.
I think YEC is an essential to the Gospel. If you were sharing about YEC, you may've been tilling the ground for someone else to plant a seed w/ the Gospel or planting seeds yourself. Or have the passion about YEC balloon into a appreciation of the full Gospel. God is always working & he has called many laborers!

I did not know you had that background. It appears while you were very intersted in YEC, you weren't getting the rest of it.

We should not be surprised when many living in total sin come to the Lord with a full passion like your sisters. They have a unique testimony that someone who was saved much younger just doesn't have. God saves all kinds: those who were saved a lot younger & those who were saved later. One reason is b/c it is to show the power is not in human beings but him.

Sadly a lot of emphasis on evangelism has been lost in the name of unity. Evangelism is a primary mission of the church. It is great that you are questioning the need to evangelize. Our lives are a mission field. We don't have to go overseas or knock on doors to evangelize. God has so ordered our lives, evangelism opportunities will come, but we need to take advantage of them when they come. The lost aren't afraid of talking about their beliefs, we shouldn't be either.

Yes, I do think many people who call themselves Christians are in serious danger of going to hell. A lot of the time they are just checking a box they're a Christian. They believe a vague Jesus, that he loved people & we should do that too, & they went to church on Christmas, & that's more or less the extent of it. That's really believing yourself.

johansen · 2025-07-03T17:51:29-0500

RileyG said:
Odd.

Its how almost every civilization collapses...sexual freedom to do that which does not bear fruit.

Love365 · 2025-07-03T17:50:19-0500

d taylor said:
What is the catholic church in need of more churches, is the church really growing. Who is this poor group are you speaking about, homeless people?

Some locations don‘t have a Catholic Church nearby.

Homeless people may need more help than that.

Tropical Wilds · 2025-07-03T17:48:27-0500

Jamdoc said:
I said guns are harder to buy than browsing porn even under these laws, requiring not only ID's and background checks, and you go on to say ammo can be bought online without background checks.

Despite the fact that one is in theory not supposed to be able to do so as a minor because they’re supposed to furnish ID…

Jamdoc said:
That is moving goalposts, going from guns to ammo.

Are we really going to need me to explain to you how guns and ammo are connected to each other…? Because most people understand how ammo falls under gun regulation without requiring an explanation. If you do not, that’s fine… Unique, but fine… But that isn’t moving a goal post.

Bradskii · 2025-07-03T17:48:24-0500

durangodawood said:
I thusly refute thee.

And this:

Login to view embedded media
Two fun facts...I used to live up the road from Howard Jones in High Wycombe, a small market town about an hour west of London. And...the guy playing keyboards in the D:Ream clip is Brian Cox the well known UK physicist.

d taylor · 2025-07-03T17:47:33-0500

-

Sacrificing a human just like an animal would not take away sin, because they are part of the sinful earth. So God The Father sent God The Son to give His perfect life to take away sin.
Jesus was not sacrifice in the way the pagans sacrificed their victims.

Jesus gave His life, children and whoever do not give their life in pagan practices, more than likely the child or person is taken against their will or their parents will.

What was the reason pagan's sacrificed children.

Is abortion child sacrifice

Postvieww · 2025-07-03T17:45:01-0500

Fantine said:
Why would someone like me, who with my husband will get an additional $12,000 senior tax deduction next year, still feel that this bill hurts the innocent?

Because you obviously believe the lies of the left. Who are the innocents you refer to ? Is it the people who broke the law to be here or is it the people who have scammed the system and do not deserve the benefits?

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-03T17:43:48-0500

1Tonne said:
That’s a really weak comparison. When I heard the Gospel, someone explained it to me clearly. I wasn’t handed a Bible and told, “Go read it all and figure it out yourself.” If you believe your evidence is strong, then you should be able to present it concisely. Dumping a 50-page paper isn’t a fair or effective way to communicate. And in the end, the evidence that was meant to be in those documents was not there anyway

Do you not think there might be a difference between something like the Bible; a collection of stories, poetry, and songs that was compiled and collated thousands of years ago, versus the works of biological science regarding something that is still being worked on and can change day to day and requires a major understanding of the thing you're railing against to understand it?

... just food for thought.

Gene2memE · 2025-07-03T17:39:00-0500

MrMoe said:
I assume they were different since left wingers weren’t complaining about their tactics back then.

There were VOCAL and VOLUABLE complaints from progressive and immigration reform advocates who were "left wingers" during the Obama administration. Not to mention waves of infighting within the Democrat party over the administration's approach- particularly its very high deportation count in the first 3 years.

The administration made major adjustments to its deportation policies and priorities several times - which again generated dissatisfaction from "the left".

Notably, in 2011/12 it revised approaches around enforcement efforts/trod more gently** around breaking up families (particularly those with minor dependants). It also slowed deportations of unaccompanied young people and generally avoided removals on the elderly, unless there was a prior removal order.

But then it expanded enforcement again after 2014, which resulted in major outcry over 2015/16 after some very high profile raids.

Some examples:

Obama Immigration Policies Satisfy Neither Right Nor Left

President Obama faces a conundrum: On immigration he's attacked from the left and the right, by disillusioned Latino critics and by conservatives who accuse him of failing to secure the country's borders — even as he deports a record number of immigrants.

www.texastribune.org

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-deport-sanders-omalley-217132

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/immigration-deportation-democrats-obama-217378

Democrats furious over Obama administration deportations

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats confronted White House officials on Thursday over holiday-season raids seeking Central American immigrants for deportation, accusing the administration of spreading terror through immigrant communities.

www.pbs.org

**At least, as gently as the general brutality and dehumanising nature of the US immigration enforcement system allows.

Postvieww · 2025-07-03T17:37:34-0500

GoldenBoy89 said:
Who was the GOP representative that changed their vote on a bill only because a colleague filibustered? That’s not a very reliable politician if you ask me.

There’s not too many who were holding out. Who do you think it was?

Sorry you are disappointed that Republicans vote with Republicans. That is something you should understand Democrats always vote in lock step.

Postvieww · 2025-07-03T17:34:47-0500

Pommer said:
“Waste“ is in the eye of the beholder

$26,300,000 (USAID) – Supporting higher education in Egypt You are right if someone in Egypt wants a college education on our tax dime, they would not consider it waste. BUT that is not the point ! It is not the responsibility of US taxpayers to pay for it . Typical liberal mentality to try to be all things to all people.

Fervent · 2025-07-03T17:34:01-0500

i have one shirt that I wear, it simply reads "tetelestai" in Greek.

RileyG · 2025-07-03T17:32:43-0500

zippy2006 said:
Are you aware of charts such as this, which Bill Maher recently joked about?

(Source - Gallup)

Odd.

HBP · 2025-07-03T17:30:58-0500

Don't ask me how I know this, but you can view the pornographic videos from virtually any XXX site through Bing videos without having any direct contact whatsoever with the site. Turn off the Safe Search feature, plug in your XXX search of choice, and 400 videos will be right there on Bing, filled with ghastly looking, heavily tattooed people doing unspeakable things. Is Bing going to verify everyone's age? It all just seems like window dressing, a Band Aid on a shotgun wound, an exercise in futility. Porn is a fact of life - indeed, the biggest and most popular fact of life on the internet - and that isn't going to change. Protecting children??? 12-year-olds today know and have seen (and in some cases done) more than I knew when I'd been married five years. They also know how to circumvent things like age verification better than I ever will. I don't have an answer, but my guess is that age verification would make no difference at all. I would almost bet that being forced to watch ten hours of these ghastly looking, heavily tattooed people would be a more effective deterrent. Take away the mystery and forbidden fruit aspect and kids would probably get bored rather quickly.

DragonFox91 · 2025-07-03T17:28:15-0500

BigBunny said:
did it have "this shirt is illegal in 52 countries " on the front?

It did not

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page