noguru
Well-known member
Glad I could oblige, laughing for awhile stopped your pain.
Enjoy.
:e4e:
No pain here. I laughed for about one nanosecond. Though I usually do not like to laugh at other people's misfortune.
Glad I could oblige, laughing for awhile stopped your pain.
Enjoy.
:e4e:
it's a chance i take every day :idunno:
live dangerously! :devil:
Hi Michael,Dear Alwight,
You know I care about you very much, but spirituality will hardly fall off a cliff. No, it shall be glorified in a Sudden SURPRISE to ALL. Won't you finally KNOW THEN!!! It won't be long either, so you don't have to wait forever. Our God promises us it will happen for those who believe in Him and for those who don't. And we are told what signs to look for to know that it is near, even though we can't say which day or hour that it will be. Yes, I know it has been over 2,040 years, so big deal? We can know when it's soon. Can science compare at all to this?? If I had to have my life in someone's hands, I would rather it be 6days, DFT_Dave's, or even noguru's, than anyone else's.
In the Love of the Creator,
Michael
Dear Alwight,
I know what you're saying, Alwight. I understand. But you know, there is a vast track record of my own personal experiences that confirm my spirituality or theology is much more than just a theory or story, including this computer I'm using now, etc.
The first angel that visited me said, "Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come upon all of the earth, and worship Him Who made the earth and heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Alwight, it REALLY HAPPENED. Now what am I supposed to believe? Science or an angel?? I don't mean to go off-topic.
Praise God,
Michael
I'm rather sceptical that your computer has anything particularly spiritual going on within it Michael and of what specifically you may choose to think is evidence of anything else spiritual.Dear Alwight,
I know what you're saying, Alwight. I understand. But you know, there is a vast track record of my own personal experiences that confirm my spirituality or theology is much more than just a theory or story, including this computer I'm using now, etc.
With my rather more sceptical eye Michael I note that what you think has specifically happened to you is all rather too close to what I'd expect a devout and emotional believer like yourself would be inclined to imagine, were they to do so.The first angel that visited me said, "Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come upon all of the earth, and worship Him Who made the earth and heaven, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Alwight, it REALLY HAPPENED. Now what am I supposed to believe? Science or an angel?? I don't mean to go off-topic.
Praise God,
Michael
I've had visions too. I've been visited by more than 3 angels. I quit counting.
Dear gcthomas,
Well, if they're very effective, you must have tried them or know someone who has, or read up on them. Irregardless, my experiences are not induced by taking drugs. The first 3 angels visited me when I was 18 years old, almost 40 years ago. Things have been happening to me for a long time now. Personal experiences, like being visited by the Lord and the Holy Spirit, or having visions happened to me over a period of 39 years. It will be 40 years as of today, TBH. I just looked at the date on my watch!! Cool!!! This is the anniversary of the Lord God first visiting and speaking to me. Time is running low!
Well, it's late and I just realized 40 years ago today, in two hours, the Lord God first visited and spoke to me. I had a heart attack that day. I lived through it because of all that happened. Well, I'm not going rehash it. It's in my book.
Time's wasting fast!!
Michael Cadry
And why did you conclude that there wasn't some correlation between these two events?Well, it's late and I just realized 40 years ago today, in two hours, the Lord God first visited and spoke to me. I had a heart attack that day. I lived through it because of all that happened. Well, I'm not going rehash it. It's in my book.
Thanks for the somewhat disingenuous summary Dave.
I've noticed that what makes fundamentalists believe how they do is because for them a conclusion must be regarded as an absolute "Truth" that never varies. However science offers answers that best match the facts, in lieu of new facts, and also that such conclusions are by their very nature meant to be falsifiable at any time. It doesn't attempt to present an absolute "Truth" just a close as possible match that sometimes needs adjustment to get closer to the actual truth.
Driving a car to a particular destination requires that you continuously have to correct the steering until, bit by bit, you get closer and closer to the conclusion of your trip. There's an analogy to science in there I believe.
Religion otoh is not falsifiable.
Unlike science, religion will just plough on regardless in whatever direction that it has pre-set for itself, content with its pre-conclusion that the course it has locked-in never needs any further adjustment... until it falls off a cliff perhaps.
Firstly, a specific ancestry of one example of evidence is one thing and any one such fossil is only ever typical of the types of creatures around and if maybe one led to us, or a probable close cousin.[It's important here to see there are two mistakes that had to be corrected.
1. The jaw of Ramapithecus has not properly constructed.
2. The prevailing theory was that human ancestry began 14 million years ago instead of 3 to 4 million years ago, 10 million years is a big change.
--Dave
Firstly, a specific ancestry of one example of evidence is one thing and any one such fossil is only ever typical of the types of creatures around and if maybe one led to us, or a probable close cousin.
It seems to me Dave that mistakes or inaccuracies will happen in any field of science and are expected, but which can be re-examined at any time in peer review, particularly if more evidence is available regarding this specific example.
Are mistakes not normal in any human endeavour and to be expected?
Anyway, who exactly is saying that the origin of human ancestry has changed? I see no evidence that general scientific opinion has in fact significantly moved on when that was, say 14 million years ago.
Come on Dave what is your bottom line here?
Does your example falsify any previous claims or not?
Are you claiming that there is a global conspiracy going on to cover up and protect the ToE and established science or not?
Does the whole of natural science now know that their previous conclusions have all been torn to shreds and have organised an amazing global cover-up, for no obviously good reason, so that they are now all living a lie that they have all sworn never to reveal and will take to their graves?
Or are you seeing things that simply are not there because you need them to be there?
Firstly, a specific ancestry of one example of evidence is one thing and any one such fossil is only ever typical of the types of creatures around and if maybe one led to us, or a probable close cousin.
It seems to me Dave that mistakes or inaccuracies will happen in any field of science and are expected, but which can be re-examined at any time in peer review, particularly if more evidence is available regarding this specific example.
Are mistakes not normal in any human endeavour and to be expected?
Anyway, who exactly is saying that the origin of human ancestry has changed? I see no evidence that general scientific opinion has in fact significantly moved on when that was, say 14 million years ago.
Come on Dave what is your bottom line here?
Does your example falsify any previous claims or not?
Are you claiming that there is a global conspiracy going on to cover up and protect the ToE and established science or not?
Does the whole of natural science now know that their previous conclusions have all been torn to shreds and have organised an amazing global cover-up, for no obviously good reason, so that they are now all living a lie that they have all sworn never to reveal and will take to their graves?
Or are you seeing things that simply are not there because you need them to be there?
Just wait, you'll see after I have covered each false claim, that was supposedly corrected, there ends up absolutely no fossil evidence for human evolution whatever.
Proof for human evolution is apparently still a work in progress.
The only thing that's evolved over time is the theory itself.
--Dave
Proof for human evolution is apparently still a work in progress.
Human evolution is still in progress.
The thing is that evolutionary 'science' accepts shoddy conclusions based on evidence that would be laughable and not tolerated in other fields of science. Dave has listed several examples of fraud that evolutionists just believed, because it fit their beliefs.It seems to me Dave that mistakes or inaccuracies will happen in any field of science and are expected, but which can be re-examined at any time in peer review, particularly if more evidence is available regarding this specific example.
Are mistakes not normal in any human endeavour and to be expected?
True... evolutionists still keep their beliefs even though their 'proofs' have vaporized.Anyway, who exactly is saying that the origin of human ancestry has changed? I see no evidence that general scientific opinion has in fact significantly moved on when that was, say 14 million years ago.