Moderator: Community Team
crispybits wrote:Serious question for any of the creationists, you guys believe in the literal truth of the story of how God made Adam, then made Eve, then despite it being forbidden they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because the devil came along as a snake and tempted Eve, and then God threw them out of Eden right? (the story goes on from there, but it's the Adam and Eve creation and life in Eden chapter I'm asking about)
Viceroy63 wrote:Seriously Player; You are a real bright boy, just deceived like a fool if you think that Hydrogen cars are my invention.
āIT IS the fuel of the futureāand always will be,ā sceptics joke. And in recent years it was hard not to chuckle: fuel cells and other promising hydrogen technologies looked like they would remain little more than science-fair projects.
But a series of alliances suggests that things are looking up for the lightest of all elements. Carmakers are increasingly worried that building battery-powered cars will not be enough to meet tough emissions and fuel-economy standards. So hydrogen is once again gaining credibilityāand the R&D dollars that could finally make it a reality.
Late last month, for instance, Toyota and BMW revealed plans to cooperate on hydrogen fuel cell research. Only days earlier Ford, Daimler and Nissan had announced they would team up in a push to bring their own fuel cell technology to market as early as 2017. āThis technology has the biggest potential for emission-free driving,ā said Thomas Weber, Daimlerās chief technologist.
Carmakers have been toying with the technology for years. In the mid-1990s hydrogen power was seen as a revolution in the making. The big draw was the fact that the gas could either be burned in an internal combustion engine, much like gasoline, or used in a fuel-cell stack. And the only thing to come out of the exhaust pipe would be water vapour.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpet ... wered-cars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-piMEZ2WcQU
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Btw, you ever notice how hell is always a lot more descriptive than heaven? The lake of fire, the gnashing of teeth etc etc
So, what about heaven? How does it look like? Is this ever revealed?
Viceroy63 wrote:And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal?
universalchiro wrote:The problem with evolutionist regarding the Biblical model of creation: It's not that they won't believe in God creating everything, it's that evolutionist are incapable of understanding the words of the God. They can't believe. Why? Because the Bible is spiritually written and spiritually discerned. And the unsaved person cannot understand it. But saved people have the mind of Christ and we are given ability to understand. (1 Corinthians 2:10-16, paraphrased for the simple).
The only way to understand and gain knowledge, is to believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and rose from the grave 3 days later, conquering death and sin. And freeing you from the wages of your sins (past, present & future), which is death (spiritual death forever).
The choice is eternity in Hell, where there is gnashing of teeth, pain, suffering, darkness and no ability to escape. Or eternity in Heaven, where there is peace, no tears, no suffering, joy, no crying, singing.
Chose now... Don't delay.
Viceroy63 wrote:And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal? That this process has been around for a while and the technology was suppressed? That it is now, all some kind of a lie conspiracy from the Christian Science Institute?
And let me just say that Cost is not the issue here, because in a hypothetical alternate universe I could be the one in your place trying to explain to me the expense of drilling for oil and converting it into fuel, over the cost of our modern cars and planes that run on, "Water!"
We use fossil fuel because that is what the masses who don't know any better are told to do. The same thing for Nuclear Energy. The sheeple do not make the choice. Any technology invested in and made to work would work eventually; And cheaply. But it would not line the pockets of the elite filthy rich who are going to make sure that they stay filthy rich be insuring mass ignorance. Like in the case of the theory of "Evolution!"
Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:
Towards the end of World War II, the Germans were on the verge of incredible discoveries and inventions. Planes that could fly at super sonic speeds. Missiles that can deliver bombs to nations across the Atlantic Ocean and to any part of the world for that matter. Bombs that could lay waste of whole cities with a single explosion and Submarines that would only need to surface for the loading up of solid food substances. These submarines would take the oxygen that they need directly from the water and the left over hydrogen gas would be more than enough to power the submarines' hydrogen engines.
Needless to say that this technology conveniently disappeared to a world ruled by Oil tycoons and banking barons. Only now when humanity is at the ends of it's ropes does this technology resurface to the fore front of science and technology in hopes of resolving our current energy crisis. A crisis which I might add was created by greedy corporations willing to do anything for the almighty dollar. Including the suppression and hiding of technologies that would benefit all of mankind!
I can present a few far less far-fetched scenarios.. such as why Los Angeles has a great freeway system instead of subways (General Motors, in particular is implicated, to get Californians would by more cars).and why hemp/marihauna was originally outlawed (because of the threat to timber companies using tree pulp)
Seriously... you don't have to invent things.
Seriously Player; You are a real bright boy, just deceived like a fool if you think that Hydrogen cars are my invention.
universalchiro wrote:Coal is said to take 20 million years to form. Yet, If I take a piece of wood, in a tube, add trace elements of clay and water, seal it in a vacuum, bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months; Presto... that piece of wood is now 100% coal. That newly formed coal, when tested by scientist to determine it's age, wow, you guessed it. They determine it's 20 million years old.
2dimes wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
RE: the rest. Shame on you!
Wait what part = "the rest"?
I'd like the record to reflect I had not seen this before I "for shame"ed you in the other thread.
Great minds?
Timminz wrote:*logarithmic
I was curious about that laboratory created coal, so I googled it. Can anyone guess what the top hit was?
It was Creation Worldview Ministries. I've never heard of this group before, but I might suggest that they're not exactly impartial.
The only other reference to actually being able to create coal in a lab, was a link to Conservapedia, where their source was, you might have guessed it, Creation Ministries International.
tzor wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:And knowing that, you still find it difficult to believe that there exist a process of turning wood into coal?
Well there is a process of turning wood into charcoal, does that count?
No, I don't think it does either.
nietzsche wrote:I declare an alliance with Viceroy.
We will smack you all and only kill each other when you are all dead.
See viewtopic.php?f=35&t=71272&start=15#p4076976
Viceroy63 wrote:My point would answer both of your questions.
To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant. The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information. The whole thing was to show that the person who brought this up, while he did not post a source at all should not be so easily dismissed just because an initial search show a religious source.
And I might add again that the cost effectiveness of the process is not the issue because any technology heavily invested in will eventually be made to work, and work at a profit. Otherwise there would be no satellites in orbit if they only considered the cost of putting that payload into orbit. The fact that some technologies are not very well known is not only due to ignorance on part of the masses who accept what is given them but to greed as well by those who would keep certain things to themselves for their benefits only.
Viceroy63 wrote: The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information.
nietzsche wrote:I got this Viceroy.
Lootifer, we all know that Australians can't even use a calculator. All you do is play with your kangaroos.
So back off, and go to the gym or kayaking because it's clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Viceroy63 wrote:To say, as Timminz wrote, that because the source of the information was some Christian Organization makes it invalid is incredibly ignorant. The source should only matter if the Organization in question already has a reputation for falsifying information. The whole thing was to show that the person who brought this up, while he did not post a source at all should not be so easily dismissed just because an initial search show a religious source.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users