Revelation 1-22

[Walter]

You are making it up NM, you have absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that the planet is in Gravitational Distress. Your very unique interpretation of the Bible is not evidence in any shape or form. I am concerned that some vulnerable people looking in on this forum could be take in and distressed by your nonsense, which has no basis in fact. 

Floo, have you looked on YouTube? Jeeeez!

[BeRational]

The problem is that when a planet becomes distressed its gravity is being altered but its long established gravity patterns maintain the equilibrium and so heat is induced and the various knock on effects that that causes. I have put a youtube video on here recently that scientifically explains some of the many disturbances that are happening in all the planets over recent years but the evidence of what is happening here on planet Earth is undeniable, suggesting what many researchers are saying...that is...that the fact that Wormwood is well on its way is quite true..

ps...busy day today so don't expect any fast responses.

None of that is true.

You have been told some nonsense.

There are no planetary disturbances, and they have been stable for millions of years, and will be for millions more.

You need to stop looking at crazy websites that tell you nonsense.

[Walter]

Sadly NM seems to have been taken in by the garbage some of these websites spout.

Floo, remember he's a joker.

[BeRational]

Floo, remember he's a joker.

Sadly, I think he believes this stuff, because he has spouted it for a long time.

[Owlswing]

Sadly, I think he believes this stuff, because he has spouted it for a long time.

Further to #51

Sadly - that is about the only appropriate description for NM state.

It is his depth of belief in the nonsense he posts that is such a waste - if applied to something real it would be worth its weight in gold!

Alas . . .

[Sebastian Toe]

3...then expelled away from the sun by centrifugal force.

You need to learn about what centrifugal force actually is first in relation to planitary orbits before you spout off any more rubbish like this Nick.
Clue;
You wont find the answer in the bible!!

[Harrowby Hall]

I wasted about two minutes investigating the YouTube reference he gave. That was all I needed to realise that it was tripe or a con and possibly both. What saddened me was the number of comments and responses attached to the video. All appeared to be swallowing  the nonsense and praising the man in the video.

Important to this tripe are some "Inuit elders".  Quite what connection these ostensible tribal eskimo leaders have with Christianity is anybody's guess ...

There is the business of Earth "moving south"  "South" is a geographic term related to the axis around which the Earth rotates.  Earth cannot "move south" there is no north or south in space. And if you were to be on a point on the Earth which moved south, at its antipode would be a point moving north. One contributor stated that the times of dawn had changed (evidence of Earth moving south, I suppose). Sunrise and sunset times can be calculated for any date at any time whether in the past or the future. There is no evidence of any influence that would cause these to no longer be reliable.

So, Sparky, if you are not a WUM, just where is the evidence of the validity of these ... err ... events? And what is the relationship between eskimos and the bible?

[Owlswing]

I wouldn't hold your breath if you are expecting a sensible answer to that question.

 . . . or to any other question addressed to NM . . . !

[NicholasMarks]

Owlswing/Floo/Harrowby Hall/Seb/BeRational/Walter...

The problem is, you see, that it is all in the Holy Bible...Not my version of course, but the bare-bones behind what I'm saying. There are a number of instances where Almighty God's indestructible 'dynamic energy' is featured within Biblical pages...most obviously when Jesus was resurrected after saying, those that follow me (Jesus) will never die. So, even you lot have that ability to be resurrected, back to the flesh, if you could summon up enough faith. The 'word' demands that to benefit from God's science we must follow righteous laws and those righteous laws are embodied within the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It's sad, but, because of your attitudes, I must deduce that there isn't much chance that you will pull it together in time...and you know what the alternative is.

[ippy]

Ippy

In my view that is precisely why he is so much of a joke - he actually believes the crap he posts.

I have a lot of sympathy for your view, but he's not a bad person, I doubt if he'd knowingly cause any harm to anyone.

ippy

[Owlswing]

I feel sorry for you NM I really do. I know some think you are a WUM, but I am of the opinion you genuinely believe the nonsense you are spouting, which makes it all the more sad.

That, dear Floo, is exactly why he IS a WUM! He KNOWS, he has been told often enough, and by enough people, that what he is posting is nonsense and that no-one believes a word of it, and he still posts more of it - that IS a wind-up.

He reminds me of a song by the Seekers from 1965 - In a World of our own (that no-one else can share)!

[NicholasMarks]

NM doesn't believe what we are telling him, he is so sure of his own rightness, however wrong he is, he can't see the wood for the trees.

Perhaps that is because I prefer to be guided by Jesus Christ rather than Floo.

[Owlswing]

Perhaps that is because I prefer to be guided by Jesus Christ rather than Floo.

Or even by scientists who, strangley enough, work in the 21st century CE, and thus know far more about science that the bunch of yokels who wrote the gospels etc!

Jesus Christ did not write the Bible, so whatever he might have thought and known is lost for ever as there is no record, even in the Bible, of him having written one single solitary word.

Floo has tried to defend the indefensible - you!

You might, for that reason alone, give her a bit of respect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or even by scientists who, strangley enough, work in the 21st century CE, and thus know far more about science that the bunch of yokels who wrote the gospels etc!

What scientists guide you Owlswing? Dawkins has turned into New Atheism's version of Alf Garnett.

Sagan's yer man of course. Pre all this science equals anti religion revivalist crap.

[Walter]

What scientists guide you Owlswing? Dawkins has turned into New Atheism's version of Alf Garnett.

Sagan's yer man of course. Pre all this science equals anti religion revivalist crap.

word soup , word soup , word soup.

[trippymonkey]

Perhaps that is because I prefer to be guided by Jesus Christ rather than Floo.

And which Jesus is that then?? The Biblical one or the real one

[torridon]

Revelation isn't yet fully played out Robinson. In fact, jusr as you have  just stated, it will come at a time when people are  saying all is well. If you had the global perspective you would nkow just how many people all around the world are experiencing some terrible floods, landslides, devastating fires and earthquakes..with much worse xpected. Not to worry though but Almighty God and Jesus don't see it like that and neither do I.

Mortality rates due to natural disasters over the last 100 years peaked in the 1920's and have been falling ever since :

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Death-rates-from-natural-catastrophes-Final.png

[Walt Zingmatilder]

word soup , word soup , word soup.

Vassler

I don't know if you've heard of Carl Sagan.

If Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato then Dawkins, Cox, De Grasse Tyson, Kaku and Greene are footnotes to Sagan.
He was an agnostic but never went the whole atheist hog.

Dawkins missed his opportunity in producing a Sagan like masterpiece.
It could have been called the Success of Science and covered Darwinism and the effects on religion and society.

Instead we got Religion, the root of all evil.....IMHO solely antitheist axe grinding wankfodder.

[Shaker]

Vassler

I don't know if you've heard of Carl Sagan.

If Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato then Dawkins, Cox, De Grasse Tyson, Kaku and Greene are footnotes to Sagan.
He was an agnostic but never went the whole atheist hog.

Since in at least one statement he apparently equated atheism with knowing that there are no gods (as opposed to simply not believing that there are any) I for one am not inclined to regard him as le dernier cri here.

Also, since Dawkins (like many of us here and unlike you) understands the difference between atheism and agnosticism, he too has stated his agnosticism - correctly, in his case.

Dawkins missed his opportunity in producing a Sagan like masterpiece.

Sounds like bullshit on stilts to me. I love Sagan's books as much as anyone, but in terms of popularity/visibility as well as raw units Dawkins surely outstrips him by a country mile. The Selfish Gene alone I should say ranks over The Dragons of Eden umpteen times over. And that's even before we get on to The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and the rest. Of Sagan's books best known to the general reading public I should say Cosmos and The Demon-Haunted World are likely the front runners. Both very, very fine works indeed; but in terms of bare sales and cultural influence, nope - Dawkins has the laurel here and I suspect you know it. Sorry - genuflect before your wood-panelled triptych of Sagan all you like but you're divorced from reality here.

Instead we got Religion, the root of all evil

Who has actually stated this, Vlad? Be specific. Name names. Squeal like a piggy. Sing like a widdle boidy. Spill the Heinz. Dob them in. Call the Government's 0800 rootofallevil.gov.uk hotline and report them anonymously.

(Pretty sure we've been here before ... but such is Vlad).

[Nearly Sane]

Since in at least one statement he apparently equated atheism with knowing that there are no gods (as opposed to simply not believing that there are any) I for one am not inclined to regard him as le dernier cri here.

Also, since Dawkins (like many of us here and unlike you) understands the difference between atheism and agnosticism, he too has stated his agnosticism - correctly, in his case.
Sounds like bullshit on stilts to me. I love Sagan's books as much as anyone, but in terms of popularity/visibility as well as raw units Dawkins surely outstrips him by a country mile. The Selfish Gene alone I should say ranks over The Dragons of Eden umpteen times over. And that's even before we get on to The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and the rest. Of Sagan's books best known to the general reading public I should say Cosmos and The Demon-Haunted World are likely the front runners. Both very, very fine works indeed; but in terms of bare sales and cultural influence, nope - Dawkins has the laurel here and I suspect you know it. Sorry - genuflect before your wood-panelled triptych of Sagan all you like but you're divorced from reality here.
Who has actually stated this, Vlad? Be specific. Name names. Squeal like a piggy. Sing like a widdle boidy. Spill the Heinz. Dob them in. Call the Government's 0800 rootofallevil.gov.uk hotline and report them anonymously.

(Pretty sure we've been here before ... but such is Vlad).

My guess is that Vlad is referring to 'Cosmos' and comparing it to 'Root of All Evil?' as a TV show and missing the out question mark.

 

[Shaker]

My guess is that Vlad is referring to 'Cosmos' and comparing it to 'Root of All Evil?' as a TV show and missing the out question mark.

Surely you don't mean the question mark that Dawkins insisted on?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well there are sales of books and then there is getting round to reading them and of course, the coffee table in between

However, I'm talking about both television which has viewers and the public awareness of science.

We could argue whether Dawkins had the televisual access that Sagan had. My guess is that he did and he even had a job in that area.

[Shaker]

Well there are sales of books and then there is getting round to reading them and of course, the coffee table in between

... as Prof. Hawking would be the first to tell you.

However, I'm talking about both television which has viewers and the public awareness of science.

We could argue whether Dawkins had the televisual access that Sagan had. My guess is that he did and he even had a job in that area.

In terms of television Sagan probably edges it - Cosmos was deservedly popular. Public awareness of science - Dawkins, I think. He's never done all that much TV, presumably because he feels that it's not a medium that appeals to him anywhere near as much as writing. Dawkins is known as a superb writer, a great expositor of complex ideas in clear language; Sagan could do it too but I don't think anybody would say he was noted for it.

[Owlswing]

What scientists guide you Owlswing? Dawkins has turned into New Atheism's version of Alf Garnett.

Sagan's yer man of course. Pre all this science equals anti religion revivalist crap.

When I need advice on science I will go to someone whose opinions I respect, thank you.

Dawkins - no- not my cup of tea - his atheism is almost as repugnant to me as Sassy's, Hope's and your Christianity.

Sagan - maybe, but I haven't read or seen much of his work.

[Sebastian Toe]

What scientists guide you Owlswing?

...and you?