My choice of words? I just quoted you. What would give me any indication that anyone wanted to eliminate any religion, unless they stated it themselves? Not something I would believe would come up in a casual conversation.

Then you must not be very observant, since I'm not very religious, I don't often comment on the topic. I'm also not bothered by anyone else's particular faith (or lack of it), whatever gives you comfort. I don't believe Republicans have a lock on good government, but they are not in complete control of the show now, are they? So where do you believe the focus should be? I don't support most of Obama's policies (but it's not personal), with partial exception to Afghanistan (so not a complete write off). I don't believe I've ever made a determination that Islam was evil. While I'm all for conservative principles, I'm not a tea party member, nor have I advocated here or anywhere else on their behalf, even though I agree with many of their points.

So how again am I defining what should be insightful for you? You'll need to do better than your quote above. On the contrary, I've been quite tolerant of your rant. Why? Because in the end it really doesn't matter to me. You aren't changing my mind, and I couldn't care less if I changed yours, but there are folks here, both left and right, that have some insightful things to say from time to time. Comment if you like, just be prepared to answer for or explain what you write when questioned, otherwise nothing you post will be taken as remotely close to insightful. There is a reason for the quasi-political posts in the "Off Topic" section. It's because those folks can't meaningfully discuss their points here in the politics forums and get upset, take away their ball and go home, blocking dissenters,  when someone disagrees with their philosophy. I'm not bothered who disagrees with me, some do. If that's you (easily bothered by disagreement), you'll find kinship there. 

Lula, I'm going to disagree here. I believe scientists have observed the gravitational forces of these phenomenon. I haven't researched it myself, and I could be wrong, but I seem to recall something about it on Discovery or the Science channel.

It is not a fact that Hawkings is pretty much saying what the Bible says. Where in Scripture is it that we need to abandon earth or face extinction? Where is it in Scripture the humans must turn to outer space for survival? 

Probably because most religions tend to borrow elements from earlier ones. It is evolving as we speak... splinter groups, policy changes, etc.

There's no sense Lula in speaking about this with you.  You are a preterist so you believe everything I'm speaking about (Revelation and prophecy) has already happened. 

not really B.T.  Because I know better. 

Nitro..I concur with your reply #46.  In fact, I could have written most of that myself including the fact that I don't call myself religious either.  Although admittedly it is one of my favorite topics because I think there is just way too much confusion in this area about the difference between those who profess to be a believer and those who truly possess a true faith.  People automatically think because you're religious, belonging to an upstanding church you must be good. 

Heck, even the mafia goes to church before they take someone for a one way ride out of town. 

Nitro posts:

I'm asking questions for I don't think so. I think everything we think we know about the idea of black holes, a term coined in 1968, is still theory. 

From space.com/blackholes:

We have given black holes their name because light inside the event horizon can never be seen by mankind, or any outside observer. We believe that black holes in space are created by the collapse of a red super giant star. As these stars reach the end of their lives, an imbalance of inward and outward pressure forces the star to collapse.

Information on black holes is limited, though numerous schools of theory exist. We know black holes exist not because we can see them, but because of the impact they have on the space around them.

Hawking and Roger Penrose mathematically linked black holes to the Big Bang, which they assert created the universe and all that's in it.

Just for added interest on Hawking, I found this from 2001.

Hawking stated at a meeting of scientists in Switzerland claiming that "genetic engineering will lead inevitably to 'improved' super-intelligent human beings within the next few centuries." He said that "Humans could be given much larger brains as soon as technology allowed them to be grown outside the confines of the womb".

Here's a link and an excerpt from a Scientist (Christian)  who is thinking along the same lines as I am.   He's agreeing with Hawking partly like I am, but we have a different solution for Hawking's dilemma than he does.   

But first...remember Hawking's said this: 

"Let’s face it: The planet is heating up, Earth’s population is expanding at an exponential rate, and the the natural resources vital to our survival are running out faster than we can replace them with sustainable alternatives. Even if the human race manages not to push itself to the brink of nuclear extinction, it is still a foregone conclusion that our aging sun will expand and swallow the Earth in roughly 7.6 billion years."

Stephen Hawking is right in calling the earth a “dying planet.”  This is what the Bible tells us:

For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (Romans 8:22)

The earth (in fact, the whole universe) is dying because of sin—it is now groaning because of the effects of the Curse.

However, Stephen Hawking is wrong in declaring that man could cause his own extinction or that man has to escape to space to survive.  The Bible tells us what will happen in the future (and astrophysicist Dr. Robert Smith is partly correct when he says the earth will become “very hot”):

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.  Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,  looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?  Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:10-13)

 

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/08/11/stephen-hawking%E2%80%94both-right-and-wrong/

double post

KFC posts:

Well said and words that should be taken seriously. The new world leader is the antichrist and he will be far worse than Hitler, a combination of all the tryrants from the beginning of time.  The problem is he's going to be so smooth and seem to solve all the world's problems that he will be accepted by many.He will be the leader of an absolute totalitarian world regime.

....................

Nitro posts:

The globalists at the UN are attempting to move us towards a one-world government set-up. It's called Globalism. Country after country will give up their sovereignty and people will be forced to give up their property rights. The education system is teaching globalism now. 

KFC,

Your post 54 certainly clarifies a lot of things,  but that's not what you initially wrote.

You write in post 54....

However, as I see it, you are contradicting what you wrote in your original article. 

You write:

How can Hawkings be both wrong and yet be saying pretty much that same thing as Scripture and not far off from the answer and description given by Christ?

That is the problem. You and your religion know better and by GOD, the other 5 billion heathens will just have to see it that way or else. If you so accept the words of Jesus and GOD, why do you spend so much of your time telling us what they really meant? I do not have any problems at all understanding what you call the word of GOD.  I just don’t need you or some organization to explain it all to me. And I do not insist there are no other possible exceptions or valid arguments opposing anything I believe in. Just show me the car-fax and we can actually communicate intelligently. If you cannot, then you are just blowing more smoke.

But I do have problems with organizations that placate their flocks with built in excuses for success and failure. If one just continues to fill the coffers, suffer enough penance and meekly goes away, the hierarchy will find it in their hearts to put in a good word with GOD. If something goes wrong it is our fault and everything that goes right is by the grace of the Almighty. Are you people stupid enough to believe that WE are incapable of good work or success or failure on our own merits ... without your blessings or your excuses? It is you that thumbs your proverbial nose at the world in provocation, not I. I am no better or worse than any other human being on this planet as we are all born blissfully ignorant and totally innocent … and then we pollute our children to ensure there is an abundance of future idiots to carry on the grand tradition of trying to prove you are right and everyone else is wrong. It’s just not my cup of tea.

Is that why you refused to believe they exist despite all the evidence?  Something goes against your book so you alter the evidence?  If so that is rather a nice illustration.

Ok, in that case we agree!

I am not contending that, but the smaller the population, the less likely there were wars between peoples (that is #1).  Number 2, I would hesitate to call the sacking of Rome under the Visigoths or the conquest of Asia by Alexander, or the ravaging of Europe by the Huns, or the American Civil War as religious.  Not all wars (prior to the 20th century) was based upon religion.  Many were, but not all.