Part 10 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

From a cosmological and universal standpoint probability dictates an EXTREMELY HIGH PROBABILITY that Millions upon Millions of intelligent and sentient species existing upon other planets in the Universe in the same way Humanity is existing now on Earth.....have evolved, existed and have had their entire species completely wiped out and made extinct by a variety of events such as Asteroid or Cometary bombardment, Solar Flares, Solar Expansion due to stellar age and the conversion of the vast majority of the stars hydrogen into Helium via fusion, encounters with Black Holes, Excessive Cosmic Radiation and a host of other existing ELE's....or Extinction Level Events.

This planet has existed with life on it for Billions of Years before our Ancient Ancestors first walked upright....and probably will have life existing on it after Humanity has gone the way of the Dinosaurs unless we evolve to the point of being able to have the intelligence to develop Interstellar Travel thus by spreading ourselves to other planets around other stars or perhaps being able to Terra form planets like Mars....we could possibly avoid extinction.

But at any rate....we are just a tiny aspect of a much larger living Universe.

AboveAlpha

 

no im not it can be calculated by how fast stars burn fuel when they fuse H into He. In fact it already has.

 

No, there was obviously an error with the O-rings. I just don't know how you take one instance of an error in design and then create a general worldview where all scientific conclusions are error-ridden

 

It certainly is a spectacle to watch you complain about people interpreting what you are saying, and then interpret what other people are saying at full steam. The second half of my sentence indicates that I'm speaking about a probable assessment.

 

'
So God didn't know Jesus was going to be crucified...from the beginning???....He only "turned it into something good" after He learned it was going to happen?

 

The difference being, I don't say such things as "you know...." and "you think...." or "you believe..."as the opening part of a sentence.

 

So, when you questioned me like this: "You're always suspect that an error occurred because the Challenger exploded?" while you KNOW that "there was obviously an error with the O-rings", your question was for what purpose? Now here is another interesting question. How do you KNOW that there was obviously an error with the O-rings?

 

Testing on the O-rings showed that there they were not sufficiently malleable at cold temperatures. This was found in the Rogers Commission.

- - - Updated - - -

What difference does it make whether it is at the beginning of the sentence or the end of the sentence? Are you incapable of reading past the first few words of a sentence to gain insight into the context of what I'm saying? And what difference does it make if I use those words or not? Your sentences include grandiose statements about what somebody is saying without using those words, and the sentence where I actually used the words "You think" or "You know" were in question format. Hardly a statement of knowledge that I know what you're thinking.

 

Was that prior to the explosion or after the explosion. If before the explosion then why were the rings not replaced before the launch? If after the explosion, then the rings would have been sufficiently altered by the heat of the flames to make accurate analysis possible. Reason that such accurate analysis would have been unlikely is that the exact temperature of the fire surrounding the portion of the ring that was tested was unknown. Likely result,,, guesswork.

The introduction to a sentence sets the intent of the sentence. Example: "Have you ever..." indicates a question. Example: "You did...." establishes a declaration of what was done. Example: "you know...." indicates that the speaker has a knowledge of what the subject person "you" KNOWS.

 

They didn't just make one O-ring. They didn't test the O-rings from the Challenger, they tested the same type of O-rings that were used ON the Challenger.

According to who? You? I can provide numerous counter-examples to the opposite effect.

 

If they did not test the O-ring from the challenger, then they don't know that was the problem or error. Gee. That is like saying that a particular computer was tested resolved that it had no defects and concluded that all others made just like the one tested would also have no defects. Guilt by association...

I believe that the text you have highlighted was printed by me, so the natural assumption in answer to your question would be "Me".

 

They also had video evidence, testing notes about the O-ring in relation to the boosters, etc. What you're saying is basically that any investigation into an accident after the fact can't be accurate.

"How did this fire start?"
"WE CAN NEVER KNOW!"

Idiotic.

Then I have no reason to believe that what you say is true. You've provided no evidence besides your say-so. Try again.

 

No! You are the one suggesting that no investigation into an accident after the fact can be accurate. I have merely questioned you in regard to your knowledge of those events. You did state. in relevant part.. "They didn't test the O-rings from the Challenger.."

Then why did you originally declare that it was the fault of the O-rings?

What is "idiotic"?

If you have no reason to believe me, then why do you keep questioning me? To try again would be an evidence of redundancy.

 

Well you believe God is not making them but we Christians believe God is making them.

Furthermore I am under no obligation to prove anything to you, so I guess if you still want to play the "P" game, go play it yourself.

So now the burden is on you to prove what you believe is true.

I can predict with 100% certainty.....you will fail to do.

 

What would it matter to you if they tested the O-rings from the Challenger anyways? You don't accept the findings of scientific tests.

If you have no evidence to back up what you say, why do you keep saying things as if they are true?

 

Funny thing.....he did not claim God was not making them...just that they are made.

Are we to assume that by NOT saying God does something we are stating he did not?

I intend to get laid tonight...did I just say God is not my Pimp?

 

unless and until a doctor says to him "we have a new drug which will save your life - we know this because it's been SCIENTIFICALLY TESTED"

 

Well you do want people on this forum to accept what you say as 'true' don't you? If you do, then start reporting the 'truth' rather than making up things to put on the forum.. such things a "they didn't test the O-rings from the Challenger"... or that it is obvious that the O-rings caused the explosion (words to that effect).

If I 'believe' them to be true, then in my mind they are 'true'. If you see that my thinking is in error regarding that 'truth' that I perceive, then it would be up to you as to whether or not you desire to convince me of my error.

 

The problem here would be, that when anyone provides you with data that a normal and intelligent individual would take into account and possibly use to evaluate this "TRUTH"....it is always summarily dismissed by your interesting and misunderstood mind.

 

That is not true. I believe there were two instances today, where on this forum, someone presented the forum with data, and I accepted that data as "true". So please keep at least a tinge of accuracy in your statements regarding me.

 

Do you always have a penchant to assign blame to God when you can't explain and understand why things can happen so suddenly?

Mankind knows about all the natural disasters that can occur. There are always warnings but we have made ourselves incapable of hearing them. Even when we do hear them we hardly ever listen to them hence the injury and destruction experienced by those who have been affected by these sudden changes in nature.

People living in California know that the entire state is vulnerable to earth quakes. People living near beaches know they are vulnerable to tsunamis. People living in certain areas in Florida know that they are vulnerable to sinkholes. People living in the Midwest or what they call tornado alley know there are vulnerable to tornadoes and yet all these people continue to live in those types of areas.

Since at the present time we have closed ourselves to spiritual understanding and insight and due to a complete lack of understanding of what is really going on around us, we could then have the audacity to ask this question and try to blame God for these changes because many of us have perished in these so-called disasters.

We perished simply as a result of our own fault because we failed to read the signs or as often happens we deliberately refuse to acknowledge these warnings. Who then is to blame?

It is often instructive that we as mankind have never yet accepted blame for anything. We have never yet accepted responsibility. It is always something else responsible and ultimately it is God that is to blame for everything.

It is time to accept that man is to blame for all the imperfections and the disasters and all that is wrong in the world.

We have only ourselves to blame, our wrong words, thoughts, and evil deeds have poisoned our environment bringing nothing but misery and suffering.

 

These were of course things you already considered truth in your mind.

 

No tecoyah... it was actually in regard to a particular personal aspect of his/her life and I certainly would not have had any knowledge of that prior to his/her making mention of it. That was one of them... I don't exactly recall what the other one was... but it could be found if someone wanted to research my postings for today.

 

And by "words to that effect" you must mean "not at all what you said". What I said was:

"No, there was obviously an error with the O-rings." Nothing more.

Then why do you pester other people about proof? According to you, the burden is on you to prove others wrong when they say something.

 

Well, I was at least close enough to remind you of what you stated. Now that you have repeated it, you still have not proven that "there was obviously an error with the O-rings."

Well, I did prove you were wrong: you have not proven that there was obviously an error with the O-rings.