Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.What the hell is the matter with you.
Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.
If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.Actually Jacob seems to be well aware of the fact that atheists are going to hell. I'm guessing that's why he objects to writing them off.
If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.
Regarding the yecheadquarters site reccomended by BigChrisfilm...
(Quote)
I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.
[link to yecheadquarters site removed by me]
Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.
(End Quote)
I really don't think that site should be recommended to anyone. Not that the various FSTDT quotes and images are so bad in and of themselves (blasphemy aside), but rather the severely damaging image the YECH site's creator gives of Christians across the board.
An inability to comprehend both direct statements and sarcasm is only the beginning of his/her problems.
The blatant and obvious twisting of the facts he/she uses, and the fact that the quotes he/she selects are more convincing in many cases that his/her own comments upon them don't help much either.
The key failing of the site as a whole is the authors repetitive tendency to use all the misquoting/out of context quoting/incomplete statements and twisted meaning techniques he/she accuses the FSTDT posters of.
His/her Hitler fascination is quite disturbing to boot, even though the vast majority of the comparisons put forward on the site don't stand up to a first glance, never mind careful consideration.
Really, that whole site is quite an embarrassment to Christians.
Examples follow.
1. 2nd page, picture 1. Clearly a "no Mormons please" logo, not Christian related at all.
2. 2nd page of the site, the "Klansmen" picture is a statement of tolerance, not the alleged anti-Semitic statement.
3. 3rd page, Image 1. Claims that atheists are trying to censor the bible, based on one humorous image with no element of censorship (though a strong element of blasphemy). Given the amount of fringe Christians around demanding that schools remove large lists of books from libraries... Well, this isn't going to be a strong arguing point for any Christian group. Note the extremely laboured link to Hitlers "control the textbooks" quote, and consider in reference to the above fringe elements...
4. 3rd page, last image... This is somehow proof that evolution is satanic? Evolution may be. I don't much care. But nothing here proves or even suggests anything of the sort)
5. 4th page, opening. The author declares (out of nowhere) that evolutionists want to ban God. The somehow extrapolates from this to "Evolutionists want to kill all Christians". This level of paranoia benefits no-one.
6. 4th page. An un-attributed quote saying that science is the search for natural solutions. This is extrapolated to say Christians are banned from science. Not sure how he makes that one work, even if that were a genuine definition of science.
7. 4th Page, "Stop using Jesus as an excuse" image and interpretation. This is actually a perfectly valid statement, crudely and questionably phrased. There is a problem with various groups using our Lord as a blanket justification for their own hatreds. The interpretation on this site however somehow reads it as claiming all Christians share these hatreds. The word "conform" is used in the sites interpretation, and then used to string together another non-existent link to Hitler.
8. 5th page in total... Blasphemous images abound. However the reading into these that these "evolutionists" want homeland security to fail... The author here displays a complete lack of logic and an inability to reason. (He/She is also unaware of the difference between inappropriate content and obscenity).
9. 6th page, opening images. The mockery here is of Young Earth Creationists, not God. (Was the earth created 6000 years ago or 60 Billion years ago? Why would we really care? Those touched by the spirit will have faith, those not, can't. No-one is saved by semantic and/or scientific arguments).
10. 6th page, the table of quotes. Every single quote is out of context. Most are clearly sarcastic in nature. The author either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the arguments being made. While none of this justifies the statements made in these quotes it does leave the author very, very far out on a limb when he/she makes similar points about FSTDT.
11. 6th page, last image. A nasty, nasty image, but the authors claim that this is an admission that the FSTDT crowd get inspiration from Nazis is pure gibberish.
12. 7th page, first part. Blatant twisting of the statements, and deliberate miss-understanding expressed in the blue commentary weaken the site still further.
13. 7th page second part. Obviously biased and loaded questions. No actual desire to ask about the site, and several blatant lies disguised as questions. Very much along the lines of "So, brother, do you still beat your wife?".
14. 8th page, opening. Clear and chronic failure to comprehend written English in the opening paragraph (no claim that Christians are virii is made) and the concept of humour in the Doonesbury (which cannot be attributed to FSTDT anyway).
15. 8th Page, closing paragraph. Irrational claim that inventions of scientists who are Christians should be denied to/refused by "evolutionists"... No rational explanation for this one at all...
16. 9th page. Somehow it is determined that referring to a webpage (FSTDT) for material for a trashy radio show indicates the medias support and fervent belief that the page in question is inviolate truth... No. I don't get it either.
17. 9th page, closing paragraph. Apparently radio is now an abomination because Hitler used to use it, and anyone using radio is just like Hitler.
Whoa... rather longer than expected. Sorry for the large blodge of text.
Also, you are trying to tell me that in any frame of reference, all of the other galaxies out there will look like they are moving away from us? Even if we were to look from another galaxy's point of view?
RealityCheck, clearly you are well versed in physics!
Alas, I provided Richard with the balloon analogy a few weeks ago, and he doesn't believe it for some reason.
He doesn't believe the analogy is valid, or he doesn't believe the balloon will actually behave exactly as stated?
In the book "Geocentricity" by Gerardus D. Bouw, Bouw explains that it wasn't Newton's plan to invalidate any place in the universe as special, or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read it, I'd have to quote it to you.. He implicitly denies the Newtonian theory of gravity
Please source evidence of this.
Observational evidence
It was not until the year 2000 that scientists finally had all the pieces of direct observational evidence necessary to confirm the metric expansion of the universe. However, before this evidence was discovered, theoretical cosmologists considered the metric expansion of space to be a likely feature of the universe based on what they considered to be a small number of reasonable assumptions in modeling the universe. Chief among these were:
To varying degrees, observational cosmologists have discovered evidence supporting these assumptions in addition to direct observations of space expanding. Today, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, the properties of the universe which scientists have tested and which can be observed provide compelling confirmation. Sources of confirmation include:
- the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous).
- the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").
Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne).
- Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us ("Hubble's law") as predicted by a universal expansion.[2] Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogenous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
- In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales in much the same way a Jackson Pollock painting looks lumpy close-up, but more regular as a whole.
- the isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
- The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems. As reported by a group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory, the radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[3] Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.
Additionally, scientists are confident that the theories which rely on the metric expansion of space are correct because they have passed the rigorous standards of the scientific method. In particular, when physics calculations are performed based upon the current theories (including metric expansion), they appear to give results and predictions which, in general, agree extremely closely with both astrophysical and particle physics observations. The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space. This evidence is taken very seriously because the level of detail and the sheer quantity of measurements which the theories predict can be shown to precisely and accurately match visible reality. The level of precision is difficult to quantify, but is on the order of the precision seen in the physical constants that govern the physics of the universe.
If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory.
If you're going to hint at things then go ahead and put the information up, carefully explaining exactly what you're trying to say. Your site is well-intentioned, but it's riddled with logical fallacies. Someone gave you a nice explanation of how you could strengthen your position; blow it off if you like, but clinging to weak arguments is just silly.That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort.
Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.
A who is search should give the host to that site.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?