Lets imagine the entire north American content was "beamed" to another planet. On this planet there is a toxin in the air that is exactly 3' above the ground, there is a creature that the eats the 50% of people with the least amount of hair on their body every 10 years, and there is another creature that eats the top 50% smartest people every 10 years.
Everyone over 3' tall would either die, or would end up crawling around on all fours. The people that would survive would be those who had genes that made them short or good at crawling. The bad crawler and tall genes would be virtually eliminated.
After a few thousand years, the genes that coded for the lack of hair would have been completely exterminated, because everyone with these genes had most likely already been eaten. That also means that the genes of those with allot of hair would become the new average. and after tens of thousands of years, people would become very very hairy.
Also, the average intelligence would have been lowered quite a bit. And those with the smart genes would be quickly eaten.
Thus, creating a sub-species of humans, that crawl around on all fours, are completely hairy, and are not as intelligent as normal humans, like monkeys. As you can see, what I just did was evolve humans back into monkeys.
LOL
Take that creationists!!!!
Let's imagine that "redking" was beamed to another planet.
Nope. Still no intelligent life on other planets.
Anything else you'd like to add?
Nope. Still no intelligent life on other planets.
Anything else you'd like to add?
newguy,
I see you've been sharping your claws while resting.
P.S. Many greetings to newgal. Did she like the presents for her birthday?
I see you've been sharping your claws while resting.
P.S. Many greetings to newgal. Did she like the presents for her birthday?
QUOTE (Upisoft+Feb 11 2006, 06:54 PM)
newguy,
I see you've been sharping your claws while resting.
P.S. Many greetings to newgal. Did she like the presents for her birthday?
Upisoft: I have an honest question for you(any other "scientists" are free to chime in as well):
Do any of you "scientists" ever reprove any of your own or are all "scientists" given "Carte Blanche"?
I see you've been sharping your claws while resting.
P.S. Many greetings to newgal. Did she like the presents for her birthday?
Upisoft: I have an honest question for you(any other "scientists" are free to chime in as well):
Do any of you "scientists" ever reprove any of your own or are all "scientists" given "Carte Blanche"?
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2006, 07:13 PM)
QUOTE (Upisoft+Feb 11 2006, 06:54 PM)
newguy,
I see you've been sharping your claws while resting.
P.S. Many greetings to newgal. Did she like the presents for her birthday?
Upisoft: I have an honest question for you(any other "scientists" are free to chime in as well):
Do any of you "scientists" ever reprove any of your own or are all "scientists" given "Carte Blanche"?
Newguy, your quoting of the word "scientist" is right, because I'm software engineer. My experience with the science is to read different opinions of real scientists and eventually to take a side. For example, I don't think that redshift explanation by Doppler effect or Inflation are currently right.
We also have different opinions among us here on this forum. You can read, if you want to, this topic: Microblack holes- a pandora"s box! and you can see that I disagree with the paranoia there.
OK, let's stay on topic.
What's your imaginary proof of evolution?
Thanks,
I think NewGuy is referring to the post by redking. It appears that you are giving Carte Blanche to anyone who professes a belief in evolution. And if not, then why aren't you 'reproving' this redking post?
Well, since I have made my first appearance here today, I had no time to reprove his post. However I probably wouldn't bother, for a few reasons. One it is a simple 'thought experiment' he is using as proof, which is dumb. Thought experiments have their role in science, but lets not regress back to the time when you decided the natural laws through logic, rather than through nature. His post was pretty implausible, and sort of retarded, and really unneccessary to respond to. Both sides of the debate realize that it is either an attempt at humor, or an attempt at making a point gone wrong. I also think the reason that it appears as we are all sticking together against the creation is because we are. First, almost all of us don't know a lot about evolution, and about the issues that are always being debated. It makes it tough to argue with eachother when we the same information about as indepth as everyone else. And many of the ID arguements are old, tiresome, and most if not all see the same holes in it. Occasionally I will find one of the physics topics in its infancy and actually be able to respond, and if I know someone is understanding something wrong I will correct it (barring that I understand it myself). And others have done the same to me.
Well, since I have made my first appearance here today, I had no time to reprove his post. However I probably wouldn't bother, for a few reasons. One it is a simple 'thought experiment' he is using as proof, which is dumb. Thought experiments have their role in science, but lets not regress back to the time when you decided the natural laws through logic, rather than through nature. His post was pretty implausible, and sort of retarded, and really unneccessary to respond to. Both sides of the debate realize that it is either an attempt at humor, or an attempt at making a point gone wrong. I also think the reason that it appears as we are all sticking together against the creation is because we are. First, almost all of us don't know a lot about evolution, and about the issues that are always being debated. It makes it tough to argue with eachother when we the same information about as indepth as everyone else. And many of the ID arguements are old, tiresome, and most if not all see the same holes in it. Occasionally I will find one of the physics topics in its infancy and actually be able to respond, and if I know someone is understanding something wrong I will correct it (barring that I understand it myself). And others have done the same to me.
grendle: Believe it or not, my expectations on this forum are exactly what you just cited...I only hope "to make a few people think a little bit". I really don't get "stressed" or "eaten up from the inside" as some have suggested of me.
Newguy, it might give you mixed feelings then to know that since my time here I have learned a lot, and thought a lot about my beliefs (the good), but all of this thinking has strengthened my beliefs and helped me further realize that they are right for me (the bad). So as far as your concerned the results probably stink, but at least I have learned and thought much more about it eh?
Come on Messenger, you know that his proof was the very first post. And if you didn't realize, it was just a simple thought experiment. Though experiments can only prove things in the minds of a few. Even the great physicists who used thought experiments knew that they could answer the theoretical questions, but they still had to pass natures tests. Thought experiments definately have their place in science, but they are not proof of anything.
I see you've been sharping your claws while resting.
P.S. Many greetings to newgal. Did she like the presents for her birthday?
Upisoft: I have an honest question for you(any other "scientists" are free to chime in as well):
Do any of you "scientists" ever reprove any of your own or are all "scientists" given "Carte Blanche"?
Newguy, your quoting of the word "scientist" is right, because I'm software engineer. My experience with the science is to read different opinions of real scientists and eventually to take a side. For example, I don't think that redshift explanation by Doppler effect or Inflation are currently right.
We also have different opinions among us here on this forum. You can read, if you want to, this topic: Microblack holes- a pandora"s box! and you can see that I disagree with the paranoia there.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2006, 07:13 PM)
Upisoft: I have an honest question for you(any other "scientists" are free to chime in as well):
Do any of you "scientists" ever reprove any of your own or are all "scientists" given "Carte Blanche"?
Hi NewGuy,
What aspect of life are you speaking of for reproval? Professionally, it is done frequently. One major trait of new research is that it be repeatable - that is, that other researchers can produce the same results. And researchers do check up on new research in this way. If the results are not repeatable, the research is discarded. If a researcher deliberately falsifies their results, they lose all credibility and in all cases I've heard of, won't work in science any more. A good example is the stem cell 'researcher' in South Korea. His career is toast, and he was stripped of his professorship.
Do any of you "scientists" ever reprove any of your own or are all "scientists" given "Carte Blanche"?
Hi NewGuy,
What aspect of life are you speaking of for reproval? Professionally, it is done frequently. One major trait of new research is that it be repeatable - that is, that other researchers can produce the same results. And researchers do check up on new research in this way. If the results are not repeatable, the research is discarded. If a researcher deliberately falsifies their results, they lose all credibility and in all cases I've heard of, won't work in science any more. A good example is the stem cell 'researcher' in South Korea. His career is toast, and he was stripped of his professorship.
Birdan,
I think NewGuy is referring to the post by redking. It appears that you are giving Carte Blanche to anyone who professes a belief in evolution. And if not, then why aren't you 'reproving' this redking post?
I think NewGuy is referring to the post by redking. It appears that you are giving Carte Blanche to anyone who professes a belief in evolution. And if not, then why aren't you 'reproving' this redking post?
birdan: I should have been more specific with my question. I was only referring to this forum. Oftentimes I have seen someone on the "evolution" side of the debate make ridiculous/trollish statements. I know that the word "troll" is thrown around quite liberally on this forum, but I don't think that I've ever used it myself, before now. I have personally witnessed a handful of genuine "trolls"(at least in my opinion) post on the "scientific" end of this debate without any reproof from their own. I'm not even necessarily talking about statements that had anything whatsoever to do with "science". When similar ridiculous/trollish statements are made by those on the "creation" side of the debate, there are usually several "scientists" that take them to task for it, and rightly so. I'm just looking for a level playing field(not that this is a game, by any means). Sorry for the confusion.
Personally I didn't respond to Redking's post because I took it to be silly. Either intentionally so in an attempt at humour, or because the poster really has some silly ideas about biology.
I didn't respond to passionfortruth's post from the "other side" for similar reasons.
P.S.
And Newguy, it may not be a game, but it isn't serious either. It is only a message board / forum. People may discuss some serious subjects, but if the world is saved or destroyed it won't be because of anything said here but by actions outside of cyberspace.
I didn't respond to passionfortruth's post from the "other side" for similar reasons.
P.S.
And Newguy, it may not be a game, but it isn't serious either. It is only a message board / forum. People may discuss some serious subjects, but if the world is saved or destroyed it won't be because of anything said here but by actions outside of cyberspace.
QUOTE (grendle+)
And Newguy, it may not be a game, but it isn't serious either. It is only a message board / forum. People may discuss some serious subjects, but if the world is saved or destroyed it won't be because of anything said here but by actions outside of cyberspace.
grendle: Just for the record, I totally disagree with you. You made a similar type of statement about a week ago...something to the effect that these forums are for "entertainment". I won't say that that isn't the case for some, but it is certainly NOT the case for me. I read a book several years ago. It was actually a compilation of sermons from a preacher from the past. None of the sermons stuck with me(maybe subconsciously), but the title of the book most certainly did. The book was entitled: "This world: Playground or Battleground?" Personally, I'm not here(on this forum or in this world) to "play". I'm in a "battle" for the souls of men. Contrary to some delusional blather by a poster on another thread, my "weapons" are "spiritual"...NOT "natural". Regardless of whether or not you or anyone else ever believe/accept my testimony about my relationship with God and my dealings in the spirit realm, it is true, nonetheless. I don't have any time to waste "playing games", here or anywhere else. "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few."(Matthew 9:37) I trust you understand, even if you don't agree.
grendle: Just for the record, I totally disagree with you. You made a similar type of statement about a week ago...something to the effect that these forums are for "entertainment". I won't say that that isn't the case for some, but it is certainly NOT the case for me. I read a book several years ago. It was actually a compilation of sermons from a preacher from the past. None of the sermons stuck with me(maybe subconsciously), but the title of the book most certainly did. The book was entitled: "This world: Playground or Battleground?" Personally, I'm not here(on this forum or in this world) to "play". I'm in a "battle" for the souls of men. Contrary to some delusional blather by a poster on another thread, my "weapons" are "spiritual"...NOT "natural". Regardless of whether or not you or anyone else ever believe/accept my testimony about my relationship with God and my dealings in the spirit realm, it is true, nonetheless. I don't have any time to waste "playing games", here or anywhere else. "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few."(Matthew 9:37) I trust you understand, even if you don't agree.
OK, I confess, I didn't read much of the opening post on this thread. It lost me at "beam up". There are quite a few of those Startrekian people running around science forums (Na Nu Na Nu) and I tend to skip over them. Same with the 'we are all harmonic energy vibrations and quartz crystals contain the secrets of the universe' posters.
So, having read the entire post, I consider its primary purpose to be flaming, and Redking to be a reprobate. Besides, everyone knows Australia would be beamed up long before North America.
But, while on the general topic, I would much prefer posts stay more 'on topic' and not get so roiled up in personal opinion (of which I too am occassionally guilty). An idea is discussed back and forth and people can agree or agree to disagree. Arguing about beliefs is about as productive as arguing about whether brussel sprouts taste good.
So, having read the entire post, I consider its primary purpose to be flaming, and Redking to be a reprobate. Besides, everyone knows Australia would be beamed up long before North America.
But, while on the general topic, I would much prefer posts stay more 'on topic' and not get so roiled up in personal opinion (of which I too am occassionally guilty). An idea is discussed back and forth and people can agree or agree to disagree. Arguing about beliefs is about as productive as arguing about whether brussel sprouts taste good.
OK, let's stay on topic.What's your imaginary proof of evolution?
Thanks,
Newguy,
I do understand, believe it or not. I also have over a decade of experience in the nature of online interactions and it's limitations. I think the best you can possibly hope for is to make a few people think a little bit.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but that you shouldn't expect too much. The stress isn't healthy and you have a wife and family to look after. Put your resources where they will do the most good and don't let yourself get caught in a losing battle is all I suggest.
Even if I am the "other side"
I do understand, believe it or not. I also have over a decade of experience in the nature of online interactions and it's limitations. I think the best you can possibly hope for is to make a few people think a little bit.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but that you shouldn't expect too much. The stress isn't healthy and you have a wife and family to look after. Put your resources where they will do the most good and don't let yourself get caught in a losing battle is all I suggest.
Even if I am the "other side"
QUOTE (birdan+Feb 11 2006, 10:41 PM)
Arguing about beliefs is about as productive as arguing about whether brussel sprouts taste good.
Okay then, how about the "evolution" of brussel sprouts? Or perhaps they were "intelligently designed" to taste awful and induce flatulence? 
The origin of Brasssica oleracea var gemmifera is thought to be the result of a mutation from the savoy cabbage, Brassica olearcea capitata L. sabuda subgroup. Two main types of brussel sprouts have arisen: the tall variety, standing 2 to 4 feet tall, and the short variety, growing to a maximum height of 2 feet. The preferred size of the sprouts varies with Europeans opting for sprouts ½ inch in diameter, while Americans prefer sprouts 1 to 2 inches in diameter.
Most of the breeding work with brussel sprouts has occured in Europe. US hybrids are primarily from European introduction focus on uniformity, vigor and disease resistance. Some of the standard varieties grown today have been in production for a long time. ‘Catskill’ (also known as Long Island Improved) is a dwarf variety with medium sprout size coming into maturity 85-95 days after transplanting. ‘Jade Cross’ (F1 hybrid) is a compact variety of a bluish-green color, medium size sprouts come into harvestable maturity 85-90 days after transplanting. ‘Jade Cross E’ (hybrid) is taller and has more uniform sprout growth than the F1 hybrid. Some other dwarf cultivars are ‘Early Morn Dwarf Improved,’ and ‘Friither Zwerg Kvik.’
Okay then, how about the "evolution" of brussel sprouts? Or perhaps they were "intelligently designed" to taste awful and induce flatulence?
The origin of Brasssica oleracea var gemmifera is thought to be the result of a mutation from the savoy cabbage, Brassica olearcea capitata L. sabuda subgroup. Two main types of brussel sprouts have arisen: the tall variety, standing 2 to 4 feet tall, and the short variety, growing to a maximum height of 2 feet. The preferred size of the sprouts varies with Europeans opting for sprouts ½ inch in diameter, while Americans prefer sprouts 1 to 2 inches in diameter.
Most of the breeding work with brussel sprouts has occured in Europe. US hybrids are primarily from European introduction focus on uniformity, vigor and disease resistance. Some of the standard varieties grown today have been in production for a long time. ‘Catskill’ (also known as Long Island Improved) is a dwarf variety with medium sprout size coming into maturity 85-95 days after transplanting. ‘Jade Cross’ (F1 hybrid) is a compact variety of a bluish-green color, medium size sprouts come into harvestable maturity 85-90 days after transplanting. ‘Jade Cross E’ (hybrid) is taller and has more uniform sprout growth than the F1 hybrid. Some other dwarf cultivars are ‘Early Morn Dwarf Improved,’ and ‘Friither Zwerg Kvik.’
QUOTE (birdan+Feb 11 2006, 09:41 PM)
OK, I confess, I didn't read much of the opening post on this thread. It lost me at "beam up". There are quite a few of those Startrekian people running around science forums
Ya know It was said once the His Rod and Staff confornted him.
That was meant to say his Roddenbury ie: Rod.
Live long and prosper and that sign is an old Jewish one that they use on the show.
Enterprising thought - nou
"Don't Klingon me woman" isn't that in the Bible
and people say God has no sence of humor?
It all started out on a tiny ship on a three hour tour . . . no wait that was a diffrent show.
L8er
Gee
Ya know It was said once the His Rod and Staff confornted him.
That was meant to say his Roddenbury ie: Rod.
Live long and prosper and that sign is an old Jewish one that they use on the show.
Enterprising thought - nou
"Don't Klingon me woman" isn't that in the Bible
and people say God has no sence of humor?
It all started out on a tiny ship on a three hour tour . . . no wait that was a diffrent show.
L8er
Gee
QUOTE (grendle+Feb 12 2006, 06:28 AM)
Newguy,
I do understand, believe it or not. I also have over a decade of experience in the nature of online interactions and it's limitations. I think the best you can possibly hope for is to make a few people think a little bit.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but that you shouldn't expect too much. The stress isn't healthy and you have a wife and family to look after. Put your resources where they will do the most good and don't let yourself get caught in a losing battle is all I suggest.
Even if I am the "other side"
grendle: Believe it or not, my expectations on this forum are exactly what you just cited...I only hope "to make a few people think a little bit". I really don't get "stressed" or "eaten up from the inside" as some have suggested of me. What bothers me is when people "play dumb"...especially those who claim to be "scientists". I've encountered that a few times with different people on this forum and that is what has made me evaluate the usage of my time here over and over again. "Playing dumb" constitutes "playing" in my book. As I said, I have no time for such "games". Quite frankly, I personally have more hope for the "scientists" on this forum than for most of the so-called "Christians" on this forum. As I stated quite some time ago, as far as I'm concerned, the most dangerous people on the face of the earth are those who think they are "saved" and aren't. I won't expound on that any more at this time. Anyway, I'm certainly open to serious dialogue. I trust that I'll find some on this forum, even if not with all of the posters. Have a good one.
I do understand, believe it or not. I also have over a decade of experience in the nature of online interactions and it's limitations. I think the best you can possibly hope for is to make a few people think a little bit.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but that you shouldn't expect too much. The stress isn't healthy and you have a wife and family to look after. Put your resources where they will do the most good and don't let yourself get caught in a losing battle is all I suggest.
Even if I am the "other side"
grendle: Believe it or not, my expectations on this forum are exactly what you just cited...I only hope "to make a few people think a little bit". I really don't get "stressed" or "eaten up from the inside" as some have suggested of me. What bothers me is when people "play dumb"...especially those who claim to be "scientists". I've encountered that a few times with different people on this forum and that is what has made me evaluate the usage of my time here over and over again. "Playing dumb" constitutes "playing" in my book. As I said, I have no time for such "games". Quite frankly, I personally have more hope for the "scientists" on this forum than for most of the so-called "Christians" on this forum. As I stated quite some time ago, as far as I'm concerned, the most dangerous people on the face of the earth are those who think they are "saved" and aren't. I won't expound on that any more at this time. Anyway, I'm certainly open to serious dialogue. I trust that I'll find some on this forum, even if not with all of the posters. Have a good one.
QUOTE
I think NewGuy is referring to the post by redking. It appears that you are giving Carte Blanche to anyone who professes a belief in evolution. And if not, then why aren't you 'reproving' this redking post?
Well, since I have made my first appearance here today, I had no time to reprove his post. However I probably wouldn't bother, for a few reasons. One it is a simple 'thought experiment' he is using as proof, which is dumb. Thought experiments have their role in science, but lets not regress back to the time when you decided the natural laws through logic, rather than through nature. His post was pretty implausible, and sort of retarded, and really unneccessary to respond to. Both sides of the debate realize that it is either an attempt at humor, or an attempt at making a point gone wrong. I also think the reason that it appears as we are all sticking together against the creation is because we are. First, almost all of us don't know a lot about evolution, and about the issues that are always being debated. It makes it tough to argue with eachother when we the same information about as indepth as everyone else. And many of the ID arguements are old, tiresome, and most if not all see the same holes in it. Occasionally I will find one of the physics topics in its infancy and actually be able to respond, and if I know someone is understanding something wrong I will correct it (barring that I understand it myself). And others have done the same to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I think NewGuy is referring to the post by redking. It appears that you are giving Carte Blanche to anyone who professes a belief in evolution. And if not, then why aren't you 'reproving' this redking post? |
Well, since I have made my first appearance here today, I had no time to reprove his post. However I probably wouldn't bother, for a few reasons. One it is a simple 'thought experiment' he is using as proof, which is dumb. Thought experiments have their role in science, but lets not regress back to the time when you decided the natural laws through logic, rather than through nature. His post was pretty implausible, and sort of retarded, and really unneccessary to respond to. Both sides of the debate realize that it is either an attempt at humor, or an attempt at making a point gone wrong. I also think the reason that it appears as we are all sticking together against the creation is because we are. First, almost all of us don't know a lot about evolution, and about the issues that are always being debated. It makes it tough to argue with eachother when we the same information about as indepth as everyone else. And many of the ID arguements are old, tiresome, and most if not all see the same holes in it. Occasionally I will find one of the physics topics in its infancy and actually be able to respond, and if I know someone is understanding something wrong I will correct it (barring that I understand it myself). And others have done the same to me.
grendle: Believe it or not, my expectations on this forum are exactly what you just cited...I only hope "to make a few people think a little bit". I really don't get "stressed" or "eaten up from the inside" as some have suggested of me.
Newguy, it might give you mixed feelings then to know that since my time here I have learned a lot, and thought a lot about my beliefs (the good), but all of this thinking has strengthened my beliefs and helped me further realize that they are right for me (the bad). So as far as your concerned the results probably stink, but at least I have learned and thought much more about it eh?
QUOTE
What's your imaginary proof of evolution?
Come on Messenger, you know that his proof was the very first post. And if you didn't realize, it was just a simple thought experiment. Though experiments can only prove things in the minds of a few. Even the great physicists who used thought experiments knew that they could answer the theoretical questions, but they still had to pass natures tests. Thought experiments definately have their place in science, but they are not proof of anything.
QUOTE (newguy+)
grendle: Believe it or not, my expectations on this forum are exactly what you just cited...I only hope "to make a few people think a little bit". I really don't get "stressed" or "eaten up from the inside" as some have suggested of me.
QUOTE (Steveo+)
Newguy, it might give you mixed feelings then to know that since my time here I have learned a lot, and thought a lot about my beliefs (the good), but all of this thinking has strengthened my beliefs and helped me further realize that they are right for me (the bad). So as far as your concerned the results probably stink, but at least I have learned and thought much more about it eh?
Steveo: I don't know who said it, it might have been Clint Eastwood in a movie, but someone once said:
"A man's got to know his limitations."
I know mine. From a Biblical perspective, there are three things that I consider when it comes to my interaction with others concerning "the gospel". These three things are:
1. The sower.
2. The seed.
3. The soil.
I only have control over the first two. I can FIRST make sure that my own life is in order or headed in that direction. If not, then I ought not be "sowing". I can then make sure that I am "scattering" the right "seed"...in this case, the Word of God. Whether that "seed" is received or rejected by the "soil"(others) is TOTALLY OUT OF MY CONTROL. I do NOT, as I have stated in the past, believe in "forced conversions". My part is to "scatter" which hopefully leads to "planting" and "watering". God alone can give the increase. I'm confident that I've at least "scattered" some good "seed". For that, I'm thankful.
This seems like(even to me) an unusual time to say the following, but here it comes. I am firmly convinced that one day Jesus Christ will return to this earth and establish the kingdom of God here on earth. I am equally convinced that He will rule over the nations from Jerusalem. Additionally, I am convinced that what has been foreordained for Jesus Christ is what Satan covets most. This is what I believe you can look for in the future. The Vatican will make a move for Jerusalem. There will be a rebuilt Jewish Temple. One day a "Pope" will sit in that rebuilt Temple and declare himself to be God. All I ask is that you remember that I told you this. Have a good one.
Steveo: I don't know who said it, it might have been Clint Eastwood in a movie, but someone once said:
"A man's got to know his limitations."
I know mine. From a Biblical perspective, there are three things that I consider when it comes to my interaction with others concerning "the gospel". These three things are:
1. The sower.
2. The seed.
3. The soil.
I only have control over the first two. I can FIRST make sure that my own life is in order or headed in that direction. If not, then I ought not be "sowing". I can then make sure that I am "scattering" the right "seed"...in this case, the Word of God. Whether that "seed" is received or rejected by the "soil"(others) is TOTALLY OUT OF MY CONTROL. I do NOT, as I have stated in the past, believe in "forced conversions". My part is to "scatter" which hopefully leads to "planting" and "watering". God alone can give the increase. I'm confident that I've at least "scattered" some good "seed". For that, I'm thankful.
This seems like(even to me) an unusual time to say the following, but here it comes. I am firmly convinced that one day Jesus Christ will return to this earth and establish the kingdom of God here on earth. I am equally convinced that He will rule over the nations from Jerusalem. Additionally, I am convinced that what has been foreordained for Jesus Christ is what Satan covets most. This is what I believe you can look for in the future. The Vatican will make a move for Jerusalem. There will be a rebuilt Jewish Temple. One day a "Pope" will sit in that rebuilt Temple and declare himself to be God. All I ask is that you remember that I told you this. Have a good one.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.