Nice fabrication, but this human origin story is impossible
Because there is only 1 God, and He’s not a alien engineer.
shareBecause there is only 1 God, and He’s not a alien engineer.
shareExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where's your evidence?
shareThere’s this thing called a Bible.
shareLet me ask you this:
My neighbor told me yesterday that he stopped going to work by car. When I asked if he'd take the bus instead he simply said "No, I can fly like Superman".
I said, "prove it". He said no but still claimed that he can fly at will.
Would you believe that? No? Me neither.
What if other people start to claim they saw my neighbor flying to work?
Would you believe it then? What if a thousand people would claim it. Or a million? Billion? What if books were written about it and movies made? Would you believe that my neighbor is Superman?
What’s the reason you wouldn’t think he was superman? Is it because you’ve met superman?
shareI'd have to see him flying (performing miracles) . Would you believe him? If so, why?
shareWhy do you believe that Barrack Obama exists?
shareFootage, photographs... has anybody seen him walking on water?
shareSo you haven’t seen him personally though. You’re relying on other people’s documented evidence, and you have faith in that.
It’s the same with God.
You have a picture of God? Can I see it?
shareThere are legit pictures idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
why do you think this is God, could be anyone? and why does this prove to you that this person could walk on water?
shareIt's Jesus Chist you fool.
This guy
https://assets.ldscdn.org/e5/c4/e5c4e6431e8fb8ae572c4b61492a996a98213d2b/sheep_jesus_parson_parable_christ.jpeg
the shroud has LONG LONG LONG LONG been debunked. no serious christen organization even says its real for fear of losing credibility. I guess when you are a religitard though you 1. won't do even a basic amount of research and 2. will fall for anything.
shareHe said EVIDENCE.
shareThe proof is in the bible. Jesus said to be more concerned if you’ve heard the evidence and ignored it, rather than those who haven’t heard it at all.
shareThere is no proof of God or of the resurrection. Even the bible says " For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:". So you believe in a fantasy or you don't. The bible provides some good guidance, equally bad, but there is no proof in this work of aggregated unsubstantiated stories.
shareThat's not what "proof" means.
shareGive us more. If I say "there's an invisible donkey in the room," it's up to me to prove there is, not up to you to prove there isn't. Same thing.
shareDoes an invisible donkey have a bible spanning thousands of pages over thousands of years?
shareif it only spanned 100 years is it more or less true??
the hindu religion is far older than Christianity. as is, obviously, the jewish tradition. their god must be the real one then?
yes the bible is a man made document (documents) that contain massive errors and even contradicts itself sooo many times.
Are you that ignorant? The Jewish God is the Christian God. Jesus: “I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill”
shareNo ti literally isnt. Jews will claim there was no fulfillment. that there is no trinity. God is god and Jesus is separate. it may have originated from the jewish tradition, but if you follow them you cannot believe both stories about god and say they are the same.
the only ignorant one is you. you also addressed NOTHING else in my point. you thought youd score and easy point and ignore the rest. Jesus boy is getting rekt
the bible isn't evidence for the bible clown. "there's the Torah". "there's the Quran". I guess those are true too!
shareThere are also many witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, but I’m sure you’re going to discard any evidence.
shareno there was "so many" claimed witnesses. the books weren't even written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John. we dont know who wrote them. they also constantly contradict each other
they male claims like "500 people saw!". cool story its claimed that over 1000 peoples at Hogwarts witnessed Voldermort attack the school! its in a book its true!
yes I will discard your poor shit "evidence". because every single other holy book makes the exact same claim. how is you true or verifiable over theirs?
I agree with you, but not out of religious inducement. The evolutionary history of homo sapiens is more or less well understood and gaps in the chain are being filled regularly.
Not to mention that such an experiment doesn't make much sense. Even the ancient people knew that they can create animals or plants with certain traits by means of selection.
But it is nice that that biblical literalists and scientific materialists can agree on the absurdity of this movie...
sharePoor demented Ridley. Makes me superstitious because Blade Runner and Alien could be explained only with demonic possession.
shareHey! The original Alien is a good SF movie. A rare thing. There is nothing in the film that could not actually make sense. The Nostromo, it's mission (Is the giant factory fully automated or is it being ferried back and forth from a site where miners or engineers live and work)?, time and distance (How fast does the ship travel?), the company directives, the flakey robot. The alien ship, it's crew, the Alien and it's life cycle (we only get the bit with Dallas cocooned in the later edit). Everything felt like it could be happening in a perfectly reasonable SF universe we simply didn't know enough about.
Blade Runner is another matter. It is a magnificent immersive reality that defies any attempt to actually make sense of it. Often, with SF movies or TV that I love, I will try to make some coherent excuses to justify the whole thing, but with Blade Runner it doesn't matter that it is impossible to do this. I don't care that it makes no sense that the androids should be indistinguishable except by that bizarre test. The year it claims to be set in makes no difference. I don't care whether "Off World" indicates interstellar travel. I refuse to compare it to the novel which is a separate thing. (I am a little sad that 2049 got made as it may be a beautiful film but attempting to extend the Blade Runner world was a bad idea.)
I think Blade Runner is supposed to be an alternative reality, not our own future. And the test doesn't make much sense but it is in the novel and things like this make sense in the paranoid world of Philip K. Dick.
shareYou are certainly right. And, if I really wanted to try making sense of the movie I would start from the notion of it as an alternate reality. The problem (I mean, if it is a problem) is that when you make some, but not all, of the ideas of the novel concrete, one can't help seeing the inconsistencies. And the novel was set in a framework of stories like the "The Days of Perky Pat" where there was colonization of the solar system to explain "off world" andthe novel has a lot of background confusingly dealt with in the film--electric sheep and all.
I love Philip K. Dick and I love Blade Runner.
"Three Stigmata" was set in the framework of "The Days of Perky Pat" but you are right that in the "Do androids dream..." the people were migrating to Mars. In Blade Runner I'm left with the impression that they settled other stars, as suggested by Hauer's monologue. It does not make sense, but it is intentional to have such anachronistic alternative reality. I'm not much concerned with the sense of it. Blade Runner is about the aesthetics anyway.
Still hard to believe that it is made by the same person who made Prometheus - a collection of comedic sketches.
> the same person who made Prometheus - a collection of comedic sketches.
LOL, perfect! Scott deserved a kick in the nuts for that stupid, stupid movie.
. I refuse to compare it to the novel which is a separate thing. (I am a little sad that 2049 got made as it may be a beautiful film but attempting to extend the Blade Runner world was a bad idea.)
The novel is rather unpleasant, mainly because Deckard is unpleasant. The movie may have a central character who spends most of the film being much like the version in the novel, but we are seeing him from outside... Which makes all the difference. We get to watch the world, which is stunning and full of surprising and beautiful images--Maybe Deckard sees it as dull and oppressive, but even his little apartment is interesting to us. Maybe if the film Deckard were telling the story it would be as colorless and abstract as the novel.
I appreciate the novel as Dick's personal and eccentric version of soft SF with Deckard as a version of the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. I don't hold him to a hard SF measuring stick anymore than I would Ray Bradbury. I suppose I just have more trouble filing a movie like Blade Runner as science fantasy than I do with something like Star Wars. Silly I suppose, but it irritates me that something so fundamentally wonderful as Blade Runner is such bad SF... Bearing in mind that "bad SF' is just a harsh and inflexible way of labeling science fantasy.
Ah okay, thanks for your explanation.
I had many of the same thoughts about the novel.
I suppose I just have more trouble filing a movie like Blade Runner as science fantasy than I do with something like Star Wars.
Well, if God made the earth and the stars and man etc... then God is either a scientist/engineer or some kind of inventor don't you think?
shareSo, movies are often largely fictional. Do you really think every movie has to adhere to your idea of what you believe is true? I find this movie likelier to be true than the Bible. That doesn't *actually make* either of us more right.
I know you *think* you're right. Or likelier you're one of those who thinks they *know* they're right. But all that is is *faith*. Which is believing in something without proof. Sorry buddy your book isn't actually proof.
Hey everyone I read Lord of the Rings so those Elvish verses are holy now? See, that's all it is.
[deleted]
You need to keep up with the news:
"Archaeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.' The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."