Posted on 11/27/2009 12:01:25 PM PST by moneyrunner
I want my FREON back!
His political rise is comparable to any other bubble in history...
Darwinists will be the next to fall.
It’s never a pretty sight to see something in its death throes.
Thought provoking essay — great!
Initial quick takes — more than three bubbles.
Dot Com bubble died in 2001 — that was an honesty injection event. That is, good. What happened was that that an honest assessment of the value of of the dot net and tech pulled into bubble in its wake was made. Assets reapplied in more honest directions, investment streams forced to find more honest ventures.
Real Estate bubble started busting well over year ago — 2007. Even sooner. Still breaking down. Political forces and continuing BAD and DISHONEST fiat money policies are blocking the bulk of the honesty injection. Thus the system is pulling more and more into its vortex of destruction.
Only honesty injections cure vortexes of destruction.
Hard to say what the Science Bubble busting course will be. Looks to be shaping up along the sick lines of the real estate bust.
Did September 2008 represent a breaking of the fiat money bubble? That’s much bigger than real estate.
Science is about nothing but truth. Any "scientist" who lies about scientific conclusions or data is not really a scientist, he is just a con artist with some fancy credentials.
What we understand about the nature and history of the Universe, while incomplete, is made up of a network of billions of interdependent facts.
There are two possibilities about what you believe is "Intelligent Design". Either God faked everything, to make all intelligent people believe in the process of evolution, and the nearly infinite amount of human knowledge which goes with it hand-in-hand, or your concept is grossly wrong.
Since you are certain that your ideas are correct, it must be true that you have chosen to believe something other than what God wants you to believe. Why would you choose to do that?
Just wait til the Obama bubble pops, when his supporters figure out that he’s really not The Messiah.
His political rise is comparable to any other bubble in history...
Hey Hey HEY! Sting thinks he is sent from God, who would have thought Sting believes in God?
Darwinism is a religious cult based in fantasy: as such it has no resemblance to anything having to do reality.
What we understand about the nature and history of the Universe, while incomplete, is made up of a network of billions of interdependent facts.
What one may understand about the history of the Universe one may only accurately understand as one chooses to pay attention to the One who tells of it, and He is the One Who was there at the beginning.
Anything else man physically studies is illuminated largely by mankind’s dimply lit and as you say, “incomplete” knowledge – and I might also add, command -- of the facts. Some of the incompleteness of knowledge of man springs from his unwillingness to believe the words of the Creator as He has seen fit to deliver them in His Scriptures.
There are two possibilities about what you believe is "Intelligent Design". Either God faked everything, ,...
False premise #1: God fakes nothing. God cannot lie, nor can he fail. However, man deceives himself routinely with regard to his own self-importance, and thereby routinely fails in his vain attempts to replace God’s power and wisdom with that of his enfeebled own understanding.
…to make all intelligent people believe in the process of evolution,...
False premise #2: Evolutionists are not quite so intelligent as either you or they may think they are. Nor do evolutionists as a group represent “all” intelligent persons.
I have studied with and worked alongside some evolutionists who appear to be nominally intelligent; I have met others – a number of posters to this board in fact -- who happen to be evolutionists of one sort or another, who are patently devoid of both knowledge of facts or even the requisite level of intelligence to support what are predominantly facile, MSM bilge-level arguments.
Those that think they created themselves, often mistakenly believe they both control and impact the Biosphere, and will attempt to con the masses into thinking the same. They are merely examples of Darwinistic simpletons that fancy themselves to be climate change "geniuses." Climate change frauds and evolutionary co-religionists have a number of acolytes over whom they hold sway. You appear to be one.
... and the nearly infinite amount of human knowledge which goes with it hand-in-hand, or your concept is grossly wrong.
False premise #3: Human knowledge is not infinite. Only God's knowledge is infinite. Laughably, for all the knowledge evolutionists claim to have, not a one can explain how or why they presumably created themselves.
Bye, bye, straw-man – and not a particularly good one at that.
Since you are certain that your ideas are correct, it must be true that you have chosen to believe something other than what God wants you to believe.
God expects mankind to believe Him. I do. You on the other hand have rather carelessly co-joined three premises into something which has (not surprisingly) brought you to a trebly false conclusion.
Why would you choose to do that?
I choose to believe God and to take Him at his Word. You might be well-advised to do the same before you persist much longer in misrepresenting Him and His character.
Just what, exactly did God say to you, the last time you spoke with Him?
“Science is about nothing but truth. “
Wrong. Science is not about truth. If you think that, you are mistaken.
Other FReepers and the folks at CalTech will tell you otherwise.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2168552/posts?page=118#118
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said “Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths.” Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
3niner: Just what, exactly did God say to you, the last time you spoke with Him?
Read the Bible. Likely the same thing He's told millions of people across thousands of years.
When I was a student at CalTech, we had something called an honor system, and it wasn't enforced from above, like the one at West Point. Honesty comes naturally to most CalTech students, and the rest quickly learn that it is of paramount importance to anyone planning to become a scientist.
In fact, the school motto was "The truth shall make you free," and we took it very seriously indeed. In the CalTech of the 1970s, anyone using your kind of logic chopping, to justify lying about scientific findings or data, would have found himself outside very quickly. If this has changed there, then CalTech is no longer really CalTech.
It constantly amazes me that millions of people have personally watched God write the Bible. How did you know that it was God doing the writing, while you watched him write it?
You also had to interpret it, and you aren't very smart. How do you know that you interpreted it correctly?
The quote you put in italics there are not my words.
It’s no logic chopping on my part to point out that other scientists claim that science is not about truth.
It wasn’t my decision.
It could be changed to read.....
It constantly amazes me that millions of people have personally watched God Darwin write the Bible Origin of the Species. How did you know that it was God Darwin doing the writing, while you watched him write it?
You also had to interpret it, and you aren't very smart. How do you know that you interpreted it correctly?
That still fits. How do you know you've interpreted the fossil record correctly? For that matter, how do you know that you've interpreted any scientific data correctly?
In order for a scientist to say that science leads us to the truth, he must have some idea of what the truth is to compare his research to.
A scientist, of all people, should understand the critical importance of having standards with which to compare things with.
What is the objective standard that scientists use so that they know when they've arrived at the truth?
"I found this book on the sidewalk...it must be the result of an explosion in a printing plant."
Yeah, only an unintelligent person would doubt that sort of thing.
Can you distill your stupidity into a shorter post, please, I don’t have time to read the unabridged version.
“You might be well-advised to do the same before you persist much longer in misrepresenting Him and His character. “
I your view, we evolution-believing Christians are already going to hell. What ELSE is He going to do to us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.