Reply With Quote
actually, she's a Kings fan.
Damn, that's twice today I've shown my Kings love...what the has gotten into me?
Angle luv has made herself infamous
actually, she's a Kings fan.
Damn, that's twice today I've shown my Kings love...what the has gotten into me?
Are you also open to any possibility of your own beliefs being wrong as well?
Well, I would hope not. While I'm an atheist, I rather enjoy some of the moral teachings of the New Testament and find a great of wisdom in its pages. I think living a life according to the supposed teachings of Jesus is a great way to live. I myself live a very "Christian-like" lifestyle and I think the Bible is mostly fiction. I say "Christian-like" because many of the precepts contained in the New Testament are found in other religions and life philosophies, but that in no way takes away from the intrinsic wisdom of the book.
I never said ambiguity was in the original question, i said it occured when you yourself as you say provided information that fingers weren't the only possible variables.There's ZERO ambiguity in the question. Absolutely NOTHING was added to the original question. What happened is that rascal tossed a theory that the response would need to be a number between 1-10. His theory is wrong in that the response needs to be a number between 0-10, and I gave him an example to sustain that 0 is a valid answer too. Unlikely? sure, but as the question was posed, absolutely valid.
^^^^^
That doesn't make it invalid...
I'll agree that the trick doesn't make it invalid like you did right there. It makes it a loaded question which is what i said it was.
Also i never said science was stupid. I said science was like religion, so i guess since you think religions are stupid you equated the two.
Absolutely.
Is there a difference between being Christian and simply being someone who tries to live his/her life by the morals in the Bible?
"I am the way, the truth, and the light..."
etc
why would a non christian follow the bible?
The pictures?
Just checking. Carry on.
A fully illustrated Bible would be x-rated.
Would you consider the morals as stated in the Bible to be exclusive to Christianity?
Especially the Old Testament.
Why not? It's a life philosophy. Maybe my prior post was a bit misleading. I don't live my life according to the Bible, but the way I live my life is similar to what the Bible teaches.
Also, I don't think I need to be assured that I will receive eternal life or salvation in order for me to see the merit in helping others, living a simple life, caring for my fellow man, etc.
There is much wisdom in the bible. If some of you cannot even appreciate that aspect of it, you have failed at this life and good luck in the next.
I don't have 'beliefs' in abiological origins. I think it's a theory that is being scrutinized and tested whenever possible. One of this days, we're going to find out whether it's valid or not.
How often you scrutinize your god? How often you scrutinize and validate the bible writings?
And I'll keep on lecturing you on the scientific method for as long as you try to wedge in faith into to.
What 'skewed evidence'?
The claim requires further study, period. This is what you can't seem to get inside your head. Science doesn't ask you to believe blindly in a theory or take it at face value. Science asks you to scrutinize it, try to prove it wrong, it actually asks you to do the opposite of what you suggest: have faith and accept it as it is. The rules, however, are that you need to prove it wrong with facts. Guessing doesn't enter the equation. If you're going to shot it down, you have to be able to demonstrate your claim irrefutably.
No, actually you're right on the dot. My definition of faith matches yours exactly.
I brought evolution up, because you brought Ben Stein, who criticized 'Darwinism' quite a bit.
Having a Genetic Biologist in the family, I know exactly what you mean. I'm not sure you went as deep on the RNA/DNA gene department as my sister, but I'm sure you probably touched it at least tangentially.
You need to read more. This is a study from the year 2000:
Other research suggests a colder start to life. Work by Leslie Orgel and colleagues on the synthesis of purines has shown that freezing temperatures are advantageous, due to the concentrating effect for key precursors such as HCN.[17] Research by Stanley Miller and colleagues suggested that while adenine and guanine require freezing conditions for synthesis, cytosine and uracil may require boiling temperatures.[18] Based on this research Miller suggested a beginning of life involving freezing conditions and exploding meteorites.[19] A new article in Discover Magazine points to research by the Miller group indicating the formation of seven different amino acids and 11 types of nucleobases in ice when ammonia and cyanide were left in a freezer from 1972–1997.[20][21] This article also describes research by Hauke Trinks showing the formation of RNA molecules 400 bases long under freezing conditions using an RNA template, a single-strand chain of RNA that guides the formation of a new strand of RNA. As that new RNA strand grows, it adheres to the template.[22] The explanation given for the unusual speed of these reactions at such a low temperature is eutectic freezing. As an ice crystal forms, it stays pure: only molecules of water join the growing crystal, while impurities like salt or cyanide are excluded. These impurities become crowded in microscopic pockets of liquid within the ice, and this crowding causes the molecules to collide more often.
And while it's still a theory, which means it might still be shot down, I think it has it's merits (I guess here is where I have to add the disclaimer that I don't hold any 'beliefs' in this theory. I merely think it has it's advantages over other theories, but I anxiously await further studies on the topic).
The reality is that abiogenesis is a fairly new theory. While it was hinted at by Darwin mid 19 century, the very first advances on the topic did not happen until the 1920's and the first actual experiment, Miller-Urey, was done only 55 years ago, which conclusively demonstrated how 22 amino acids were created along with sugars and lipids from water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The latest research from this experiment dates back to, well, this month (October 2008). So this is an area that is being actively researched, and I definitely will keep an eye on.
I hope you keep your mind open too...
You don't need faith because we know for a fact that at the very least a human designed the desk and most likely put it together too. You know that's a FACT. What you're trying to do, however, is take that same concept and apply it to something we don't know for a fact. You now extrapolate the concept and propose that 'God design humans' and call that Intelligent design. Now you linked in the supernatural that you can't even remotely explain or try to substantiate in science. At this point is where faith and unsubstantiated claims enter the picture.
The difference is that we know for a FACT that such exceptional events did happen. Volcanic eruptions, meteors, etc. God? Just an imaginary en y in the collective mind.
How can you postulate that it's mathematically not plausible if we don't even know the size of our universe? We have absolutely no idea what 3/4 of our universe contains either. I'd love to see the mathematical equation of probability you used on that one.
And I don't have 'faith'. I'm of the idea that our entire universe (and even any others, if they happen to exist) can be explained by science. And I'll I have no problems living with that line of thought.
How could you calculate ANYTHING at all, if we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to discovering what's outside our galaxy alone. This is completely baffling. You actually are telling me you have any kind of authority to know every material or planet in the universe? Excuse me if I don't believe you.
What math? Care to describe the math that has at least 2 unknown variables that cannot be estimated?
The corpse has the necessary components, but the most important component does not have the necessary energy to function. A lack of glucose or oxygen in the brain can cause it to get damaged or shut down. Since the brain controls all the other organs in a human body, the rest of the body stops functioning, and thus the person is no longer 'alive'.
For example, in the case of severe cerebral hypoxia, flow of oxygen to the brain is either lowered or completely stopped. In order to function, a human brain needs approximately 3.3ml of oxygen for each 100 grams of brain tissue each minute. When it doesn't get it, brain damage begins.
I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.
Now you're ranting. What is absurd? That we know for a fact that the Empire State building was developed using sound science and not simply faith?
When a self-proclaimed scientist that claims to know what the scientific method is keeps on attempting to introduce elements such as 'faith' and 'supernatural' into it, you will be called out for it. What you believe in is not called science, it's called pseudoscience, or as some like to call it, junk science.
No, not at all. In fact, most of the teachings I enjoy in the New Testament are also found in Buddhism.
But you don't follow the bible, you live a life of morality sure but not cause of the Bible.
Nice post. While it's true that Christians and non-Christians are inevitably going to clash sometimes in the political arena, I accept them as I accept every other difference that I encounter in the world. I mean, I prefer basketball over baseball, cities over small towns, adidas over nike, red wine over white wine, corduroy over polyester, and pizza over seafood... does any of this really make sense...? I don't think so. All we can do is try to ac ulate a good collection of preferences in this world that hopefully makes our lives more decent and beautiful, while doing as little harm as possible.
But it's attributed to a Spurs fan. Eeewwww!!
What could happen for you to think you are wrong?
*tries skinning the cat another way although it might have been best to let it die*
Jesus, I don’t know, but I think Old Testament God is a Kings fan. How else could you describe Kings fan's "Lot-like" suffering and screw job by the Lakers.
This also proves that Satan is a Lakers fan.
By your estimate, do you think my question was a 'loaded' or 'tricky' question?ElNono, I never said it did.I think it's a valid answer, just not an obvious one, so I can somewhat see his point as well. I don't think he was saying it was a "wrong" answer per se, just not an 'expected' answer. (Most people assume that typing is done with the hands, even though it could have been done theoretically by some other means. It reminds me of the old bus driver joke and what color his/her eyes were.)
I agree and I don't think anyone should live life of morality just because of the Bible. You should live a life of morality because you want to and not because of an external threat or promise.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
