Still no rebuttal. Amazing how your acquiescence is spilling the beans about the religious nature of science.
Hey all you wannabe scientists: You are not helping your cause any by acquiescing to my claims. You are giving the religion-based science a worse name than what it already has.
you are a narrow minded individual. this thread is about cataloging god. I intend to catalogue each and every god related details that people have been missing since day one when the primitive created this S _ _ _ _ _ "God". polscie
C'mon folks... surely there is at least one intelligent person on the forum who can show some empirical evidence of where those numbers on the original periodic table came from. I mean, geee... we have non-theists and theists alike who enjoy talking about how much they know about science.... Don't y'all know anything about science and the periodic table? Lets make it a little bit easier... who can explain why science should be classified as a religion that is based on NUMEROLOGY?
This is just absolutely an insight from the Lord. He has provided a line of discussion in this thread, that none of the pseudo-scientists are able to refute through the use of empirical evidence. It is a historical FACT that modern day Science is a derivative of some of the religions of days, months, years, centuries, gone by. One of the primary aspects of this modern science is its strong leaning on Numerology. Then there is that matter of the periodic table and the mysterious numbers that were pulled out of then air. No man has ever seen how many electrons are orbiting around the nucleus of an atom, neither has any man ever seen how many protons are within that nucleus. It is all imaginary.. Based on the whimsical fairy tale imaginings of some people in the past. Even to this day, no scientist can say that he/she has actually counted the number of electrons and protons involved in the atomic structure of an atom of any element. Science .... the revision of older religions.
Is there no empirical evidence that can be used by the wannabe scientists on this forum that will refute the claims I have made about their precious religion called science? Is it possible for the wannabe scientists to eliminate the Numerology from their religious belief and still maintain any alleged degree of credibility?
Have you made any effort what-so-ever to seek out this information elsewhere yet? Is random people on a political forum really the best single source of fundamental scientific information?
But it is people like those on this forum who are constantly raving about how science has done so much for society as a whole and how little religion has done for society as a whole. It is people like those on this forum who say that science is good and religion is evil. It is people like those on this forum who desire to hide behind the veil of science while not disclosing the fact that science as it is known today is a derivative of ancient religions. So, you see, I don't really need to look for the answers from anyone but those on this forum who have made such outrageous claims regarding science, like the mysterious numbers that appeared out of thin air to be used as the foundation for the periodic table of elements. Let those same people, like those on this forum who lean on science and who demand empirical evidence, to prove me wrong. They cannot prove me wrong without admitting to the metaphysical foundation of modern science. The 'random people' you speak of also make boasting claims regarding science, almost as if they were portraying themselves to be learned in those fields that incorporate the art of Numerology. They ride blindly on the coattails of famed men and women of science (Numerology) in an attempt to ridicule religion, while doing so in a manner that shows either, their ignorance of the fact that science is religion, else intentionally hiding the fact that science is religion. As for this being a "political forum"... true it is political (by name) but it also incorporates religion and science. So your point about this being a political forum is a moot point.
You could look it up though and have chosen not to. Given that you've not done so, I don't see how you can make such definitive statements about how the atomic numbers were conceived too. You're no better as the idiots and trolls you're condemning. I suspect that if you did look in to the subject properly you'd find out the numbers didn't "appear out of thin air" at all and that your numerology accusation is rubbish. The fact nobody else reading your posts can be bothered to do that work for you (in the full knowledge you'd twist any response they gave anyway) proves absolutely nothing.
Did I say that I did not look into the matter? No? Then you are being presumptuous. I did look into the matter, and the things I found, convinced me that I am justified in making the claims that I have made. Perhaps you should go back in this thread several pages and see where I found the information that led me to such a conclusion. You, seemingly, have jumped into this conversation without doing your own research (not even reading the entire set of postings). If you had, then you would have realized that my research had already been conducted before you even suggested that I should look elsewhere. Your ability to 'suspect' is unfortunately based on ignorance of the subject matter. I previously posted a link with multiple embedded links that provide ample information to justify my remarks..... including the Numerology claim. Another probable reason for the lack of others responding to this thread is the FACT that they cannot refute my claim. Much like you have failed to do. You have only presented ridicule of me without having surveyed the entire subject matter as pointed out above.
Sorry Polscie... I missed this one.. Something that is 'narrow' only speaks of one dimension. That type of description does not address the other three relative dimensions of 'height', 'width' and 'longevity (time or duration of an event)'. So, based on your ability to describe me, I can hardly wait to see your completed 'catalog of God', so that I can pick it to pieces. Oh... also don't forget to include all of the empirical evidence that you find.
i had to start cataloging "GOD" because as I see it on daily basis the titles people are discussing are all in a vicious cycle of going nowhere. look for yourself, the topics are all focused in the middle part of Man's existence. For example: a clear definition of God is not well established. the whole world is so divided abt the definition of this S ................. "GOD". what is the origin of this belief in God thing? how did this God thing get started. etc. that is why there is this importance to start cataloging "GOD". polscie.
Like I said before, have fun with the rest of your life on that project,,,, but when you call yourself finished, make sure you have all of the empirical evidence needed to support each of your claims regarding God, then call on me so that I can pick your pitiful list apart.
Wow! You folks are having some really weird experiences. Since when was it discovered that a 'belief' could stand over something dead? Do you have any sort of facts to support that probability other than the usual Numerological non-sense? Of course, if you are referring to a 'soul' then what two souls would that have been?
this statement is the pure result when you have joined a forum/discussions which started right in the middle of nowhere, not knowing....the origin of every "GOD" related arguments. if you do not know the origin.....then what the f --- are you talking/contributing about...........nothing, I must say. polscie
I do not support the claim in the belief of "GOD" ( you are) so it is you among those who supports and believe in the claim of god that have to produce/provide the world of the claim of this "GOD" of yours not me. polscie
I am not making any claim about god on this thread. my claim is how a vicious cycle of god related matter/arguments is discussed. that discussions is going nowhere and that it is important to catalogue "God". to know its origin and how it progressed since the first inception of the claim of this f_ _ _ belief. polscie.
Sure you are. You have already given a brief of why you are desiring to catalog God. That 'catalog' will be an item of intellectual property belonging to you, therefore that catalog will be a listing of the claims you are making about God. Are you now saying that you are not going to do a catalog of God (cataloging God)? There is a classic example of how you are making claims about God. When you make reference to "...the claim of this f_ _ _ belief". What specific 'belief' are you referencing? Hmmmm. Like I said. Make sure that you provide empirical evidence to support the claims that you will be representing in this work called "Cataloging God".
Am I going to be quoted in that book of yours? If not, then it is you who is making the claims. If I am going to be quoted in that book, then I first need 3 million dollars for my contributions to that book. BTW: That 3 million will go to the owner of the PF forum, under his copyright for all material published on this forum. The works of that book are yours... you are making the claims ... you provide the evidence.
Who are you talking about when you say "if you do not know the origin" and what "origin" are you talking about. Are you talking about the origin of those mysterious numbers that have been arbitrarily assigned to the elements on the periodic table?
it sounded that you have given me a compliment, if that is the case.......thank you. the way you print, you appear to be female. polscie
