RunRyder RC
 30  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     271     ( 272 )     273     NEXT    >> ] 303553 views TOPIC CLOSED
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
04-25-2011 03:41 PM  6 years agoPost 5421
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

DEET, faith is belief, not proof. You have faith that God exists, you believe that God exists - same thing. Can you prove that God exists? No you can't, because you do not have any proof.
Faith is what it is Dusty. If its sufficient proof for me and millions of others, then that is proof in itself. Faith or lack of it is also a choice. You can like that or leave it. Up to you. I have never claimed a proof for my Faith. Never have, never will. In my mind, there is no need to do so.
For those who may not see my post in another other thread regarding the reliability of wiki, and therefore how pitiful Deet's attempts are to belittle it's information,
I ignored your other post on Wikipedia because its about as worthless as the one above. But, since you insist on bringing it up again, you can find as many links that go for the reliability as you can that go for the unreliability of Wikipedia.

My point in bringing up this information about Wikipedia's reliability is for the reader to decide. Its obvious you have already decided. Wikipedia still calls itself:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

In my mind, that means it is unreliable. Period. Others can decide for themselves. It don't take a rocket scientist.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 03:47 PM  6 years agoPost 5422
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
As pointed out many, many, many times here, the above is simply not a true statement. Decide for yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Pope...WZPB_en___US344

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 04:28 PM  6 years agoPost 5423
sks

rrApprentice

london

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Faith is what it is Dusty. If its sufficient proof for me and millions of others, then that is proof in itself. Faith or lack of it is also a choice. You can like that or leave it. Up to you. I have never claimed a proof for my Faith. Never have, never will. In my mind, there is no need to do so.
if your FAITH contradicts reality, or rather does not allow it and denies it, then you're a moron.

End of discussion.

Nothing more to say. Just to wrap up the film and call it a day.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 04:33 PM  6 years agoPost 5424
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

if your FAITH contradicts reality, or rather does not allow it and denies it, then you're a moron.
Well then. I would suppose that if you think there is only ONE reality at that reality is yours, then you, also, are a moron. Welcome to the club of morons.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 04:40 PM  6 years agoPost 5425
sks

rrApprentice

london

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well then. I would suppose that if you think there is only ONE reality at that reality is yours, then you, also, are a moron. Welcome to the club of morons.
reality, in case you are not aware, is something that we all share - whether we like it or not.

it what makes sense possible. It's what makes things falsifiable, by exposing them to the one reality.

You cannot impose or force your own idea of what this reality is: so to think each individual has his own "reality" is nonsensical to say the least. It's not something you construct: it's something you observe and infer on.

It is not "my" reality: it is just THE REALITY. And that fact that you don't accept that is one of the reasons why you'll never understand what outhouse and dusty are also trying to tell you.

BTW, my mentor did not get arrogant or nasty or anything of the sort. In the end he just told me not to waste time with the idiots because they will always be idiots it seems.

You've lost from the start - and you just don't know it. We try telling you, but it's no good.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 04:51 PM  6 years agoPost 5426
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

reality, in case you are not aware, is something that we all share - whether we like it or not.

it what makes sense possible. It's what makes things falsifiable, by exposing them to the one reality.
Depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about the shape of the earth, of course, it is round. Thats reality. If you are talking about a belief or faith in God, anyone can choose his or her reality with their belief or faith. Speaking for myself, I do not choose your reality concerning faith.
It is not "my" reality: it is just THE REALITY. And that fact that you don't accept that is one of the reasons why you'll never understand what outhouse and dusty are also trying to tell you.
My reality is that I do not choose to understand what dusty and outhouse are trying to tell me. Thats a choice which has nothing to do with reality. Its just a choice.

Attempting to define your opinions and choices of reality concerning faith is simply acting like a silly a## moron. Attempting to argue or discuss faith in God away and make it disappear, in my mind, is a futile effort based on centuries upon centuries of history. Faith in God is here to stay. If it diminishes over time, it will come back. Thats history. Its my solid opinion that the diminishing of faith in God is directly tied to the diminishing of our culture. That goes hand in hand.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 05:05 PM  6 years agoPost 5427
sks

rrApprentice

london

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Attempting to define your opinions and choices of reality concerning faith is simply acting like a silly a## moron.
I've NEVER given you any opinions. I've given you FACTS.

your opinion has nothing to do with me, and I've never really expressed mine.

That's what you just don't get.

That's why you've all lost before you even began.

Your "faith", or whatever it's called, was a dead duck from the start.

You just don't know it.

And you never will, it seems.

doesn't bother me, it's not my fault that the majority are just opinionated idiots.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 05:41 PM  6 years agoPost 5428
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I've NEVER given you any opinions. I've given you FACTS.

Oh please, Mr Reality, bring us some more FACTS:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 06:33 PM  6 years agoPost 5429
sks

rrApprentice

london

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Oh please, Mr Reality, bring us some more FACTS:
we've done too much for you lot - and we're not going to do anymore. There is no hope for you lot, never was.

If you knew the truth, that is always staring at you in the face, you'd be crying by now. You're too emotionally attached to your opinions to ever even contemplate the truth. That's sad.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
this tells me that you're just an idiot.

Darwin or Newton could write in Wikipedia. Or they could write in their notebooks the stuff they discovered.

Whether you "agree" with them or not is irrelevant. What is being said and the truth of what is being said is independent of the source, and the person who wrote it.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 06:38 PM  6 years agoPost 5430
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

we've done too much for you lot - and we're not going to do anymore.
By all means, please don't do me any favors.

What is being said and the truth of what is being said is independent of the source, and the person who wrote it.
Yeah, and if they put it at Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 06:40 PM  6 years agoPost 5431
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

dont let the racoon pull you into his web, he does this on purpose

he wants everyone to be as bitter as he is.

we all know the bible is a joke in which a god was created, then the created god evolved with the christian religion. Jews the creator of the first god are still ticked off over what the christians did to their god as it only proves how people create and manipulate the gods of their choosing

propbably why theres over 33,000 different versions of christianity

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 06:45 PM  6 years agoPost 5432
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yeah, and if they put it at Wikipedia, it can be edited.
wrong racoon wrong.

wiki can be edited but if you dont back up your new edition with factual proof it will be deleted asap.

wiki is still very reliable for what it is.

you dont like it because it has knowledge and goes agaisnt your faith.

I witnessed a guy trying to change different links so his guess at where the graden of eden is would match his idea. He got shot down everywhere and they denied his entry. The only one that he could keep was on a ancient place called karsag that no one knows about and at the top it clearly states more work needs to be done and this is one mans opinion allthough it does have some scholarly background.

learn what your talking about grandpa, your ignorance is showing.

teh world is passing you by old man, its getting close to your dirt nap. lol [thats what happens to bitter old men]

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 06:57 PM  6 years agoPost 5433
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

you dont like it because it has knowledge and goes agaisnt your faith.
wiki can be edited but if you dont back up your new edition with factual proof it will be deleted asap.
You mean deleted by "Experts" such as yourself?

It also has knowledge supporting faith. But, is it reliable?

Its up to the reader to decide because:

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Thats Wikipedia's own definition of their own web site. Thats their motto. Google Wikipedia to find out for yourself.

Your attempts to place sunshine up our butts about Wikipedia is rather silly.

But, if thats what gets you off, then go for it.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 06:58 PM  6 years agoPost 5434
sks

rrApprentice

london

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yeah, and if they put it at Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone.
it would not make one jot of a difference if it could be edited by anyone or not. The point of the matter is that the source is intact.

What do I mean by this? Wiki articles cites sources for their information to preserve impartiality. A lot of their mathematical articles quote these sources, and they're usually the original papers that prove the results. If there was a mistake made and someone did it out of spite or just fooling around, the sources can be traced, and the correction made.

Wikipedia is irrelevant to the this discussion. It's just a secondary information repository for disseminating knowledge that has been accumulated, subject to public editorial control. It does not and can not change the sources of where this information comes from.

All the above means that you're and idiot, focusing on the issue of the repository and not the original source which can be called upon if needed.

And I'm sure outhouse will tell you of his sources - and they are nothing to do with Wikipedia. He's done proper research, which is very much to be commended. My hat off to you, outhouse, for doing something that the moronic majority never even consider bothering to do.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 07:04 PM  6 years agoPost 5435
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Wikipedia is irrelevant to the this discussion. It's just a secondary information repository for disseminating knowledge that has been accumulated, subject to public editorial control.
Editorial Control ????

All the above means that you're and idiot
Right back at you.
And I'm sure outhouse will tell you of his sources
He seldom does. Maybe he should show us all the wacko atheist web sites he gets his nonsense from. He's so full of it, I am not sure if anyone has time or desire to smell it.

Its my great pleasure to continually point out the silliness and bias of his and your BS. Its not all that difficult.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 07:11 PM  6 years agoPost 5436
sks

rrApprentice

london

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Right back at you.
let me put it this way in case you have trouble understanding: you are arguing about the book binding, ignoring the contents, when the argument is about the contents. Get it? Obviously not.
He seldom does. Maybe he should show us all the wacko atheist web sites he gets his nonsense from. He's so full of it, I am not sure if anyone has time or desire to smell it.
I have no doubt that outhouses sources are SUBSTANTIAL, enough to frighten you silly, considering the amount of work he's done into the historical records/documents.

you don't have any of that knowledge, and are happy with the crap you hear from other people, and your sheepie group thinking.

It's such a shame. Just a shame.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 07:13 PM  6 years agoPost 5437
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

let me put it this way in case you have trouble understanding: you are arguing about the book binding, ignoring the contents, when the argument is about the contents. Get it? Obviously not.
You mean the contents of Wikipedia ???

I have no doubt that outhouses sources are SUBSTANTIAL, enough to frighten you silly, considering the amount of work he's done into the historical records/documents.
Rrrrriiiigghht. I am frightened to death. Can't you tell.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 07:41 PM  6 years agoPost 5438
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

hers your sign racoon

The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is assessed in many ways, including statistically, by comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1]

Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly — so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[2] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities".[3] A 2007 peer-reviewed study stated that "42% of damage is repaired almost immediately... Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of millions of damaged views."[4]

A notable early study in the journal Nature suggested that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors".[5] This study was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica.[6]

By 2010 reviewers in medical and scientific fields such as toxicology, cancer research and drug information reviewing Wikipedia against professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a very high standard, often comparable in coverage to physician databases and considerably better than well known reputable national media outlets. Wikipedia articles were cited as references in journals (614 cites in 2009) and as evidence in trademark and higher court rulings. However, omissions and readability sometimes remained an issue – the former at times due to public relations removal of adverse product information and a considerable concern for fields such as medicine.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 07:43 PM  6 years agoPost 5439
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedi..._3-5997332.html

poor racoon

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-25-2011 07:46 PM  6 years agoPost 5440
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

My favorite part is since the racoon cannot defend religion and knows nothing of science.

he is now attacking wiki, and knowledge LOL you can smell the desperation.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     271     ( 272 )     273     NEXT    >> ] 303553 views TOPIC CLOSED
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 30  Topic Subscribe

Monday, September 25 - 9:10 am - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online