"The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas, vy65, DarrinS, Skull-1
To be honest, though I do think the bible is pretty much bunk, and far from logical. It is hard to say that without sounding overly confrontational, but that is what I think.
As long as someone can answer questions honestly and fairly, I can return in kind.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
q: So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and someone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?
vy65: "no, we cannot"
QUOTE=vy65;6952966] I don't think harming other people is immoral. [/QUOTE
QUOTE=robdiaz2191;7536012]I think hacking babies to death is ok sometimes.[/QUOTE
The forming of the earth entailed a cooling from a large molten blob, and a period of time before there were polar caps.
Hydrogen and oxygen combined to form water, and when it cooled enough, did condense.
This period of time had no existing life though.
The bible's flood is bunk because it would have annihilated most forms of existing life, and certainly any fresh water organisms. (edit) among many many flaws(/edit)
You can't equate the two, and attempting to is either highly dishonest, or incredibly ignorant, because you can't fairly or logically compare the two.
As it stands, there's enough logic to not drive me crazy and at the very least I find it consistent. I won't try to talk you out of your opinion anything though.
It's one of those things where you either really believe it or you really don't.
If memory serves, life on earth has sentient alien origins or similar, but he doesn't like admitting this, because then he has to defend it. Easier to pick pot shots at established theories than have one of your own.
His attacks on science stem almost entirely from a shocking degree of ignorance about science, absorbed from other people who are similarly ignorant, with a rather stubborn insistance on not subjecting anything to critical thinking.
I think it's an interesting story.
I have a hard time believing that an animal that size would be undiscovered. Granted there are some places in Canada and America that are really remote and unexplored but with the sightings so spread out that would suggest a decent breeding population and a large roaming area.
If there's that many of them alive and all, there should be some evidence like droppings, hair samples, a dead body someone stumbled upon in the woods -something. Unless people want to start arguing that Bigfoot is supernatural, I just don't really think it exists or if it does it's a case of mistaken identity (i.e. a prank or perhaps a human that's withdrawn from civilization?).
That said, given the sheer number of sightings dating back a long ways, I won't say it's impossible. Just highly, highly, highly, implausible to the point where I don't object when people say it isn't possible.
You know, he was kidding after all Skept.
Had he not come back his teachings would have died with him on the cross. He would have been proven to be a fraud, as his followers were cowarding in hiding while he was dying. But the fact he came back gave them inspiration to continue his teachings and many of them even died for their beliefs.
I don't dispute that he resurrected but I'm still looking at the logistics when Christ's actions are taken into account.
When was the last time you attended a ST gtg where someone acually called you "The Sceptic" ? Your more TRoll then 1/2 the posters in this topic
So your saying you approve od DeadZero and his skate boarding TRolls outdated insults over my researched evidence ?and compared to that I feel like this has been a fairly decent discussion.
There went your creditability not like you really had any.
Why not get over your man love for me and add something worth reading to the subject at hand?
Suck on these Darwin!
ST is what it is
You can't say you didn't see it coming......
Deadzero and his skateboarding trolls?
Have you even opened a science text book?
The pages are white the text is black Science doesn't say "we think" the earth is 4 billion years old they say it "is" 4 billion years old.
Have you even clicked on the link in my signature?
Open Mic night in the Club?
RandomLie your the king of Propaganda when it comes to
Age of Earth
No matter how many times I blow your paper thin theories out of the water you curl up in a fetal position and try and insult my character with outdated school yard insults that have as much effect on me as RedZero's re-fried pick up lines at a Lesbian wedding.
And yet you still find time to gloss yourself on that shinny Chrome plated high horse on witch you proudly post on your used 2G Cricket flip phone you found while busing a table at Bill Millers Bar B Q
Well you better make sure you take your rusty phone charger you paid 8 dollars for off Craigslist to work Thursday because I am done trying to dumb it down so you can try and keep up with my highly educated points of view.
Last edited by mouse; 04-11-2012 at 09:33 PM.
Hell, I can't even save that lame ass anti-marriage, mouse stalkin', gravity seduced maniac.
lol pretending yet again that you aren't a manchild
lol still not understanding my point about gravity
Science is the method through which we learn about our universe. Your hostility to the empirical method has always puzzled me.
So, how would you go about finding the age of the earth?
What do you think it is, if not 4.5Bn years?
What evidence supports your thesis?
Why do you discard all the other evidence we have?
You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:
Why did God let Jepthah carry through?
Why did God not stop him?
Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?
Jepthah asked God for victory, promising a sacrifice. God granted his wish. God did not stop Jepthah, nor condemn him in any way.
On most issues I'm a woman of reason but not so much in this case. I'll admit to that without any prodding.
Like I said earlier, I think it's because Jepthah was keeping his promise to God. One of the main commandments is to put God first and ahead of everything and everyone. By following through on his word in spite of what it costed him, Jepthah was following the first commandment as he understood it. Why would God condemn him in that case? On top of which, he didn't explicitly offer a human just the first thing that came out of his house. For all we know, he could've been expecting a dog or a bird to come out first.
Those are the facts. Now whether or not it was the right thing to do is a topic that's definitely up for debate.
Again, you're going from the "God is love" paradigm and then bringing morality into it. I'm the wrong person to ask that of because I don't buy into that particular belief system.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)