God Was An Alien, It's True...You Can't Prove It's Not (Page 2): When it comes to C***d and C*****e C****e, science does not agree with the t***h. Science agrees with wh**ever whoever...

Smedley_buzkill

woodguru wrote:

Science is facts and the t***h, it cares nothing about whether facts agree with god or the bible. Science can be proved, religion is taken on faith and beliefs that cannot be proved.

When it comes to C***d and C*****e C****e, science does not agree with the t***h. Science agrees with wh**ever whoever is funding them says is true.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

archie bunker wrote:

It appears that way, doesn't it?
If either one of my brothers were as arrogant, and self absorbed as this guy is, I wouldn't have much to do with them. Maybe it's mutual between them.
Doesn't matter either way though. Everything Taliwood spouts off about is what falls out of the North end of a Southbound bull.

It surely does appear..

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

woodguru wrote:

You can disagree with someone without despising them, you can even know someone is laughably wrong about something and it doesn't mean you despise them to be able to laugh about how ridiculous they are... the right doesn't believe disagreeing goes hand in hand with all the logic about hating trump meaning you h**e the country blah blah blah.

This is why republicans can't disagree with a single thing about trump without coming under attack for being t*****rs and RINO's

The way you come off is as a h**er of believers in a Creator....very simple really.

You might not h**e your brother like you do most other believers, but I'm sure he catches that superior vibe you show.

Do you think your brother finds you as a comfortable person to be around.?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

When it comes to C***d and C*****e C****e, science does not agree with the t***h. Science agrees with wh**ever whoever is funding them says is true.

It's called "convenient" science. The the issues you mentioned are perfect examples.
The "science" is all over the place, and hasn't nailed down a damn thing.

EmilyD

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

When it comes to C***d and C*****e C****e, science does not agree with the t***h. Science agrees with wh**ever whoever is funding them says is true.

Bingo ❕❕ 🎯

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

woodguru wrote:

Science is facts and the t***h, it cares nothing about whether facts agree with god or the bible. Science can be proved, religion is taken on faith and beliefs that cannot be proved.

Thank you, professor, but Science and Faith can easily prove you wrong on both counts.

The statement that science is the only way to t***h contradicts itself because the statement has no basis in science.

There is no law of science prohibiting scientists from being dishonest or unt***hful.

“Faith and Reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of t***h”

In order to determine if what you say about science and religion has any teeth, would you kindly share your background in science and religion. Have you studied in any field of science, such as physics, chemistry, anthropology, epistemology, biology or theology? Have you earned any degrees in these fields?

microphor Loc: Home is TN

woodguru wrote:

You can disagree with someone without despising them, you can even know someone is laughably wrong about something and it doesn't mean you despise them to be able to laugh about how ridiculous they are... the right doesn't believe disagreeing goes hand in hand with all the logic about hating trump meaning you h**e the country blah blah blah.

This is why republicans can't disagree with a single thing about trump without coming under attack for being t*****rs and RINO's

Coming from your mouth "You can disagree with someone without despising them" is laughable! Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump Trump....... your h**e of anyone who supports his policies is palpable!

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

microphor wrote:

Coming from your mouth "You can disagree with someone without despising them" is laughable! Trump,Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump Trump....... your h**e of anyone who supports his policies is palpable!

Poor ol wood doesn't realize that his camouf**ge isn't working.

The Ms.

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

If I am remembering correctly, you have a veterinarian spouse, dogs and an archaeologist brother??? Tell us more!!!!

son of witless

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

You are like a really bad detective fiction writer. You lay out a lot of hints that science will disprove portions of the Bible, however you basically tell us nothing useful.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

The Ms. wrote:

If I am remembering correctly, you have a veterinarian spouse, dogs and an archaeologist brother??? Tell us more!!!!

I think that he was going to be an astronaut too, but his enlarged head wouldn't fit in the capsule.

The Ms.

Michael Rich wrote:

I think that he was going to be an astronaut too, but his enlarged head wouldn't fit in the capsule.

😁😁😁

Roamin' Catholic Loc: luxurious exile

woodguru wrote:

So could an alien species that obviously had superior technology...

What kind of bomb would you suppose god used to nuke three cities (there was a third)

Sodom, Gonorrhea and Papalonia...

Maybe God dropped an F- BOMB...🤔

America 1 Loc: South Miami

nwtk2007 wrote:

In the original "consensus" survey, the ... (show quote)

"We're taking CO2 out of the system," says carbon-capturing concrete maker Carbicrete
Jennifer Hahn | 15 June 2021 14 comments
Montreal company Carbicrete has developed a method for sequestering carbon in concrete, claiming its product captures more carbon than it emits.
However, the process relies on emissions produced by other industries, so it is helping to reduce the amount of additional CO2 going into the atmosphere rather than actively removing it from the atmosphere.

But as CO2 is captured from the sky via direct air capture (DAC) companies such as Climeworks becomes more affordable, concrete could start to play a part in lowering concentrations of atmospheric carbon.
"We'd love to get it from a direct air capture unit," Stern said. "We're not there yet just because the industry is not there yet but it's certainly well-positioned for us."

The technology could eliminate hundreds of megatons of emissions

Carbicrete, which was founded in 2016, licenses its technology to concrete manufacturers who can integrate it into their existing production processes for concrete masonry units (CMUs) and precast panels.
In collaboration with Quebec manufacturer Patio Drummond, the company is building up its production capabilities to 25,000 CMUs per day while the first building using material is set to be built in Canada at the start of next year.
The technology cuts out the need for calcium-based cement, a key ingredient in traditional concrete that is responsible for around eight percent of all global CO2 emissions.
"It's negative emissions," Carbicrete CEO Chris Stern told Dezeen. "We're taking CO2 out of the system every time we make a block."

Concrete locks carbon away "forever"
The company is one of many that is racing to find low-carbon or carbon-free alternatives to traditional concrete but is one of the only ones claiming to have achieved negative carbon.
Instead of cement, Carbicrete's system combines waste slag from the steel industry plus carbon captured from industrial plants that would otherwise have gone into the atmosphere in a process known as mineral carbonation.

"We're taking it from there and then injecting it into concrete and getting rid of it forever," Stern said.
More carbon is captured during the production process than is emitted during the manufacture of the concrete, making the resulting concrete carbon-negative according to Stern.
https://www.dezeen.com/2021/06/15/carbon-capturing-concrete-carbicrete/

Wonttakeitanymore

woodguru wrote:

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in religious archeology.

I would best describe his positions he takes in regards to religiously inspired bias as somewhere between old school archeologists that simply will not endorse any theory that doesn't have a level of proof in the bible...no biblical references or contradicting biblical events and it did not happen, period.

Younger science oriented archeologists have a really hard time navigating new discoveries when they refute already published theories that were not based on any evidence, but corresponded with biblical references. Careers were made on theories, and new discoveries based on science run the risk of destroying the younger scientists when they go to write up their discoveries that are based on evidence rather than beliefs grounded with the bible.

The way Ken put this is that there are a lot of findings that aren't being written about because the authors would be publicly and professionally attacked and too many have lost in that credibility conflict between new science and old school religious archeology.

I found it really interesting to discuss the reality of what new discoveries were being made in Jordan that were packed with new finds of lost cities referenced in the bible that both corroborated exactly biblical historical passage events, and others that would paint a different picture.

The sites of both Soddom and Gomorrah have been found, and of course there is intense scrutiny on these digs to corroborate what is known from the bible. Meanwhile scientists couldn't care less about anything in the bible, and they have zero concerns about whether facts like carbon dating, or any other finds contradict biblical references, particularly where dating objects may corroborate or contradict the bible

So of course no biblical archeological efforts would be complete without trying to figure out how these cities were destroyed by god...which is where the science comes in. Science should be able to use higher technology to assess what it was that destroyed the cities. The bible references blinding flashes of light brighter than a thousand suns, okay that's fine, scientists would want to know the source of that.

It turns out that people were caught off guard, the city was going on about it's business, but sand was melted into glass, people's homes were as they were in a sudden and unexpected bomb going off...

Let the games begin between the biblical and scientists who absolutely do not care if something they found and can prove doesn't fit the bible. This conflict hurts my brother's head, he likes to believe he is a scientist first, but to watch the mental gymnastics his head is in when it contradicts the bible is seriously funny to watch.

My brother is an archeologist with a doctorate in ... (show quote)

Ur are a f**l! And you cannot prove you are not!!!