Science in the Bible---that only prove Bible is the words of our Creator!!!

...exactly..... no one can.


THAT is exactly why we use the term, God, just because the First Cause of everything since the Big Band had no Cause.
But everything else is believe to mhave a cause which we can divine thru science of Cause and Effect.

 

Yep..

That is exactly correct.

The working mothers, divorced, or re-married women raise girlie men who have been taught to make mom happy.
They are sympathic towards their working mother or psychologically bruised by the mother's relationship with a step father.

But where the father is totally absent, the growing brute of a young man respects no authority, will noomes a partiarch in his relationship to the way he treats the women in his life.
He is their boss, mom and the girls he interacts with.

Muscle and force is what counts.

So what America is raisng is a time bomb waiting to explode as 30 million Balcks in the inner city see the weak scared little white boys cringing at vilence and easily threatened into giving up their lunch money.
The girlie-men of the culture of the Matriarchy is seen more and more as an easy mark for patriarchs like Trayvon Martin to rob and face down and confront and beat the hell out of if they try to oppose them.

 

You are doing the right thing, of course.

Any kids yet?
The problem isn'tbetween the women and the men.
Its that at some point, the women want out, especially if they are doing way better, and paying most of the freight.

They really don't need you, unless they are madly in love with wonderful, Science minded, nerdy, introverted, and totally absorbed you.
And, if they are fair looks, a little frustrated in their present sex life, and working with guys who hit on them subtly,... chemistry starts things beyond the control...


If you have no kids, it will be good for you and her when she commits adultery.

 

How did this turn into a referendum on motherhood? My dad died on X-Mas day in 1959 and I was raised by my mom, a strong woman. To date I've been married twice and divorced twice. My record for a relationship is 3 years. I've been through more women than you have pairs of pants. Where the hell was that "career" woman you guys are talking about? I covered the spread for every woman I lived with, got precious little back. I went to the show the other day, saw a couple debating where to sit, she won. Guess that's why I'm not married, I would have told her to kick rocks. As for the actual premiss of this thread, if the perception of science found in the misc. ramblings of a few 2000 year old camel jockeys is proof of a deity, then I guess you should be praying to Tom Cruise and the scientoligists.

 

Introverted? I may be a little nerdy but I'm no introvert!

Yes, we have a two year old son.

And I am a very peaceful guy with a rarely provoked raging temper. It would not be good for her to commit adultery.

 

Yep...
You last about 3 three years and they got rid of you.
Women will pick men they can dominate when they have the license to go through as many men as necessary to find one who will be submissive.
And if that changes after marriage, she can simply divorce, no fault.
Or she can flirt, (cuckolding), leave, or pick a new man off the shelf.


This was why the change in pagan Rome was instigated by single men (monks) who had just refused to marry and formed large common housing called monasteries.
I doubt that they were actually virgins, but they were straight and refused marriage and domination that was part and parcel with it.


Their teachings and education of the other men living and growing up in that Roman matriarchy spread the truth which we see at work in this matriarchy.
We see the opatriarchs outside the gates of our American Empire, muslims ready to cut our throats and take our slutty women in the process.

Inside our gates we are raising in the inner cities a criminal element that needs our intense supervision and is complaining that we rich people aren't treating them fairly.
We send them money, welfare, rent, food stamps, and they grow more numerous as the Single Mothers increae the babies necessary to get the benefits.

But crying out doesn't seem to work as good as martyrdom did in Rome.

 

there are a lot of black transvestites. very feminine, very girly.

 

The prisons are full of Tops, the aggressive black guys who white girlie men fear when the word jail is mentioned.
But we can see in the gangster rap that black guys have a different relationship with girls as far as their perspective is concerned.

None of this matters though, beyond the fact that when gayness arises openly and so widely expressed in a society, we can be certain a matriarchy exists.
The adult men have clearly been forced to hide and conceal their instinctual Homophobia because the women are boss and they will protect their hair dressers and fashion designers, etc.

Women like gays very much, especially because they can have a relationship with men who are not just trying to get into their panties.
Once the women have the power, they will stop straight men from repressing gayness.
Together, the feminists and gays will always oppose the Bible because it preaches prudence and prohibits sexual promiscuity.

So the evidence for a matriarchy is Gayness appears openly.
Islam is clearly a Patriarchy and there are no Gays there.

 

By the weird logic above, "real" men shouldn't be "instinctively homophobic", since every extra homosexual reduces the competition for womens' panty ingress...

 

Sounds like extremist Islam has a new recruit!

 

You can't say there was nothing before the BB, cause you DON'T KNOW!

 

Of course we can't say what was before.
The bible never says there was nothing,...

The bible merely says there was a beginning... and sciemce even adds the year of the beginning, 13.5 billion BC

 

Not really.

The total repression and absence of women does prevent straight sexual promiscuity, and it does protect the family from Single Mother Parents and Fatherlessness.
It does stop the 1.2 million Abortions we see in America every year.

But the Homosexuality that replaces girls, increased by women avoiding marriage until age 26 and longer, perverts the society into angry men who are without incentive to work hard who fail to create a modern world in those nations.


What I want is informed sexual behavior that is prudent such as the failure of modern men to rush into marriage the way the girls have the sexual mores set up to rip them off.
That is what the 144,000 monks did in ancient Rome.



Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (that was Roman Culture, including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands (those monks living in moneyless monastic environments);

and they, (the saints/apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD, i.e., those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

 

13.75 Billion from now, not 2000 years ago.

 

How do you determine that things started 13.5 billion BC?

 

Obviously you don't realize that "christian" doesn't mean the catholic church. The bible was written long before the catholic church created itself and distorted many aspects of the bible. Just thought you should know there is a difference, cause you seemed confused.

 

Scince claims itis different frommagic, because there is ALWAYS a Cause for every Effect we observe.

That is the fundamental and most basic premise of Science.
Hence, scientists MUST assume that something was the First Cause of the Big Bang, even if they can not tell us exactly what that Cause was.

Religious people say God.
The Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter implies that Energy existed before the Big Bang, and was transformed into the Matter of the Heavens.

 

?
Me...?

I don't determine what Science tells us.
My only point is that Genesis says things that Science now also says.


Like the paleontologist who just published "The Last Man: the 22 now extunct humans" supports with his science what Genesis says about the links back to Adam:





Book:
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

A beginning of what?

Bible aint specific enough for you to say they are talking about the BB.

Could be talking bout a beginning way before the bb event, could be talking about the beggining of our solar system.

That seems right since on line 1 it says He created the earth. You aint gonna say that the earth was created at the big bang. That would be a stupid thing to say.

 

What year you livin' in, bro? That book was published years ago.

And what's that book gotta do with those dumbass pictures?

 

In that case, then we KNOW that the bb aint the beginning.

 

No, we don't, because there's no more proof of a beginning of the big bang than there is proof that it required a "beginning" in the first place. It's a hard concept to accept, but yet a hugely familiar one because we're being asked to accept that something has always existed by religions all the time. If God can always exist, why not the energy contained in the Big Bang(or whatever may have happened)?

 

I know, bro!

I was just taking what this high-schooler said into consideration. Then I remember my old college days and learnin' bout conservation of energy in Astronomy class and I realize this kid don't know what he's talking about.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. When I was a teeneager I didn't know jack (*)(*)(*)(*), either! Maybe he'll learn something if he just shut his trap and listened instead of making all these half-baked assertions.

 

WTF does this cupid dave know about being a real man? You'd get your ass whipped in a second here in Corinth, Mississippi talking about these theories of yours. Funny that you are so proud of being a "real man" over the Internet. That's the only place no one can call you out to prove it. My guess is, you are the girlie man you keep talking about.

Women don't run anything and never will. Working women just have jobs to make quotas and keep the feminists from suing. It's not like any of them will ever be all-time greats at what they do. At least not if they have to compete with men.

It's obvious that cupid dave's wife got a job and then cheated on him with a coworker. Now he's out to save the world from these Women Conquerors!

Handle your own business, dave, and let the next guy handle his. That's how to keep these women off our backs. Your little internet campaign won't do crap. It's a play right out of the girlie man handbook.

 

Hey, I didn't invent the girlie-man reference.
That was the gov of California, the muscle man who would wring your neck down there.

But the governors Girlie-man comment has beenbacked up by books which made studies onthis stuff: