MovieChat Forums > SpaceAce2001 > Replies
SpaceAce2001's Replies
He wasn't in Gotham the next minute, it took him 22 days to get to Gotham, pay attention.
Considering you don’t know the severity of the injury you are in no position to make that claim
- The fire went in the opposite direction from his friends
- The explosions were from explosive concrete that Daggett's cement trucks lined the city with
- There wasn't any face slapping I have no idea what you're talking about
These aren't "excuses" you just don't understand the film or the symbolism. I have yet to hear a single complaint that isn't rooted in ignorance.
I know this is entirely subjective and based on opinion but there are more people who love it than hate it.
Liberals also claim to be the party of women yet stayed silent as Maher made jokes about Willow Palin being molested.
Bruce had a dislocated vertebrae, not necessarily a broken back. Prison Alfred popped it back into place and then Bruce had to sit in that sling for a while (notice how the amount of facial hair changed, he was in that sling at least for a matter of weeks).
When Bruce escaped the Bomb had 23 days until it went off, when Bruce showed up the Bomb went off in a day, it took him at least 3 weeks to get back to Gotham. Plus even before he received his LOS training he was able to travel from place to place without drawing any attention to himself. Being able to get back to Gotham is perfectly within his already established character.
So no those aren't plot holes.
That was in the second film and he got bit in an area where the armor wasn't covering him.
Ms. Bramlett was an elementary school teacher and did not have a degree in any kind of science field (no I am not denigrating her as a teacher, being an elementary school teacher is a tough job, what I'm saying is she isn't an authority in any kind of science field like you and I aren't authorities in any kind of religious field). Sounds like she made a mistake or you simply forgot what she said considering you were in her class 40 years ago. What was the textbook and the edition you had? Maybe I can look it up and confirm? It's been agreed upon that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old ever since the 50's, scientists have been very consistent despite your pathetic attempts to discredit them. I'm also not believing that you remember this specific lesson from 40 years ago, I think you are lying to me.
I denigrate your sources because you cite people who don't have a background in science, I denigrate your education because you have yet to demonstrate that you even remotely understand how science works, I have NEVER denigrated your character so you owe me an apology for putting words in my mouth.
I don't believe what I want, I believe what is rational and what is supported by observations and data. You believe what you want but at least acknowledge that I have a reason for my beliefs while you do not.
I'll think for you.
Yes they have look it up, I provided you with a scientist in my other post. Chances are one of the following is true:
A) You're teachers didn't know what they were talking about
B) You didn't pay attention in class
C) You are being dishonest
I did debunk your source material. You claimed Kent Hovind was a doctor and Patriot University is a trailer which isn't even accredited. He's not a doctor and even if he was his "degree" is in Christian Education. If I want to know what bible verses say what I will turn to Kent Hovind, if I want to know more about science Kent Hovind is the last person I would ever turn to, I am going to trust the USGS, NASA, etc. instead. Also do some research on Clair Cameron Patterson in 1956 he used lead-uranium isotopes to approximate the age of the Earth at about 4.55 billion years which is essentially the same as what scientists are saying today.
Again everything that scientists are saying has been demonstrated, verified and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not 100%, science never says 100% but enough for us to treat it as fact). Creationism has never been demonstrated and there has never been a reason provided why we should believe it. You can have faith and belief all you want and that's fine but faith can lead you to different conclusions (chrisitianity, judaism, hinduism, etc.) so therefore it's not reliable.
Let me ask you this, why should anyone give their life to God when it hasn't even been demonstrated that he even exists? (notice I didn't say that I know he doesn't exist)
Looked real to me, sounds like you weren’t paying attention to the main focus
I don’t find Christianity in general offensive, it’s mostly the Southern Baptist mentality I take offense to as they think they have a right to talk down to anyone who doesn’t think like they do. That and the fact that if you don’t convert to their beliefs you are apparently heading for eternal torment. I completely agree with you about Kirk though
Also when were you in school? Because scientists have been saying the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years ever since the 1950s
I’m also so sick of the phrase “just a theory” because it’s not “just a theory” when it’s a theory it’s at the point where we are essentially treating it as fact.
Yeah from what I can tell he probably went to some website or listened to some creationist who selectively chose science facts that supported the creationist argument (like why haven't crocodiles/turtles evolved much since the Cretaceous Period) while disregarding the countless other pieces of scientific evidence that refuted creationism. Ray Comfort is a piece of work but what's really annoying about him is he is patronizing and he talks down to people when in reality he doesn't even know what he's talking about. The banana argument is pure comedy gold. It's so perfect it had to have been created, yeah the fact that you can't wrap your brain around any other possibility doesn't mean creationism is true.
Now I'm not saying this is true of all Christians, but Southern Baptists especially are the most damning people I have ever met. It's basically worship this invisible deity that you have never seen, have no confirmation that he even exists blindly or else you are going to be eternally tortured. I have a real problem with that because it's an incredibly divisive, bigoted and evil idea and by that logic about 2/3 of the world's population is going to hell.
Did you read the other thread on this board? Did you see the guy I"ve been having a back and forth with for like a couple of days now? He's kind of like Kirk he claims he is able to turn science on its head. As far as religion goes I'd just like a little confirmation that it's true before I'm expected to devote my life to it, I think that's a fairly reasonable request. Now if it was proven to be true I would still have some reservations because the idea that you will be tortured for eternity simply for having a different world view seems pretty intolerant and evil to me, not the kind of thing a loving god would do.
LOL, his evidence of a creator is a banana that was actually created through science. What a joke.
He didn't give credit to the Neo-Nazis, he made a distinction between the sincere people on both sides and the radicals on both sides. I showed you a video where he said over and over again that he denounced the Neo-Nazis how does that make him a supporter?
And yes AntiFa and BLM are the leftist equivalent of the Neo-Nazis. And if you care again Barack Obama was a supporter of the BLM terrorists, even compared them with abolitionists.
The difference between you and me is that I go off what the data tells me and I believe what is logical. You believe what you want to even if there is no reason to believe it and that's fine but don't try to discredit science because people far smarter than you and who have worked a lot harder than you have put a lot of time and effort into it and have discovered far more about the world than religion ever has. Also you have never observed God so I find it quite interesting that you would claim that Macro-Evolution has never been observed (which it has).
I know you'll pray for me, well I will think for you.
frustratingly dishonest. Evolution is not "speculation", Evolution has been repeatedly confirmed and the fact that you call it speculation not only shows that you don't get it but it is also very insulting to the years of study and research scientists have put into it. Of course they assert that the Earth is 4.56 billion years old, the current research points to an Earth that is 4.56 billion years old so for the time we have accepted that that is the age of the Earth, we have left the door open for more evidence to come later and we are willing to refine our view of the world if needed. I don't know any other way to explain this and it boggles my mind that you don't get it because I have explained it in the simplest possible terms. Science is constantly changing, our knowledge of science is constantly growing and with new information we reform our ideas. If we took our view of science 2018 years ago and we said "this is true, no question about it, toe the line or you will be tortured for eternity" like religion does then we would have gotten nowhere as a society and we would still believe in a geocentric model of the solar system.
No one says that the age of the universe is 4.5 billion years old, that is the age of the Earth/solar system, the universe is estimated to be closer to 13.7 billion. Get your facts straight
Yes science doesn't have all the answers, you are correct, Christianity however has ZERO answers, it is not demonstrable, it is not verifiable, it is all based on a book that was written millenniums ago, translated through several different languages, written at different times, it makes absurd claims which have no basis in the natural world (like the worlds population was reduced to 8 people a few thousand years ago and that Noah fit millions of organisms onto his boat while the hydrosphere more than tripled to flood the entire world and then Kangaroos somehow crossed oceans to make it to Australia while leaving no dead along the way since we didn't find any Kangaroo fossils in Asia) and it uses fear and guilt to get people to buy into it. I have already explained that faith is not an accurate pathway to the truth, I can have faith in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam or Atheism, faith would lead us to different truths and we have no idea which one is correct. The difference between you and me is that
No my mantra of you don't understand science is my conclusion based on your responses. I have a reason to believe you don't understand science because you have demonstrated that you don't understand science. What examples have I ignored? Go back and read my posts and there are plenty of examples I have given you that you have ignored. I debunked your argument about crocodiles and turtles and you didn't even address it. Do you even know what Patriot University is? I have seen the pictures it's pretty much a trailer, it is an unaccredited university (meaning the diplomas are basically toilet paper) and even if it was a legit university Kent Hovind's degree is in Christian Education which doesn't make him an authority in the field of science, and by the way I was talking about Eric Hovind.
Macro-Evolution is based on decades of observation and repeated confirmation, it does use the scientific method, again it's not something we just pulled out of our butts. We have traced fossils back billions of years, we have observed the changes to transitional formed over eons and the traces repeatedly confirm macro-evolution (and I provided countless examples of macroevolution which you just ignored). The dates are also always consistent, we have determined which time periods each organism has lived in and all of the strata we have found have always had the same organisms in the same time period. Like I said we have never found a trilobite mixed in with a T-Rex. Macro-Evolution is accepted to be fact, the problem is you are so dead set in your unverifiable beliefs which have no basis in reality that you are intentionally trying to discredit anything that might contradict it. That is another reason why I said you don't understand science. A scientist wants to find the most accurate theory, a scientist uses the data and the observations to find the conclusion that best fits the data, you want the conclusion to be god so you are discrediting any contradictory evidence while counting the evidence that might somehow fit your world view. You are frustratingly