Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.
Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.
Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.
You know what he says already?
he is a creationist but he doesnt make up shit and lie.
A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.
he is a creationist but he doesnt make up shit and lie.
You can't have one without the other.
A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.
Essentially that is what makes the difference between a religion and a science, science has the possibility of being falsifiable and a new theory developed, if you dont allow that it makes it into a religion. That is why I love science. If you thought lets say "the theory of gravity" is wrong you can test it to see if it works.
Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.
You know what he says already?
A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.
this guy seems legit.
i've not watched it all but the whole ideas fall down the second you DEMAND that that something has to have a creator, but THEN exclude God!
i am watching now, so far - lot of "wookie defense" being employed! "BU BU HUMANS MADE COMPUTERS!!!!" :/
okay, stopped watchin, started skipping through - what are the odds of evolution? science theories are never 100% certain! Dawkings! Some other guy who earned money from books - probably some science scam, etc etc.
I Googled the slideshow (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ENC0f_YVl8cJ:www.detectingdesign.com/Presentations/Lecture%25202%2520-%2520The%2520Best%2520Arguments%2520Against%2520ID%25202.ppt+%22best+arguments+against+intelligent+design%22+transcript&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) that goes along with this talk.
Assuming it's representative of his speech, then there's no reason for anyone to waste their time listening to it. It's the standard set of ID talking points. Behe! Dembski! Irreducible Complexity!
I recognize the cliches cause I did my laps on the hamster wheel that is internet debate on evolution. It helped me learn how to organize my thoughts, but it also taught me that unless a person is still in the early, squishy-brained phase of their life, then odds are vanishingly small that they can be swayed by reason on topics like this.
At a certain age, treating ID as credible is a sign that someone very much wants ID to be credible, and that any discussion on the matter will be pointless chin-stroking.
If the 79 at the end of your handle refers to your birth year, and you don't already understand the dishonesty of the Watchmaker metaphor, then there's really no point having it explained to you.
the watchmaker metaphor suggests that anything of sufficient complexity had to have a creator. of course, it complete fails to acknowledge that the very idea of "complexity" is a human psychological construct -- to the universe, a rock is no different to a human is no different to a watch is no different to a galaxy. the idea of "complexity" only matters to us and our distinguished mentally-challenged sense of awe
it's all just matter and energy in a specific random configuration, dude. to the nameless void that surrounds us, absent all human attempts to force their metaphors on the universe that surrounds them, a person is the same thing as a rock: a bunch of particles that exist in a specific configuration occupyng a specific place at a specific moment in time
it's all just matter and energy in a specific random configuration, dude. to the nameless void that surrounds us, absent all human attempts to force their metaphors on the universe that surrounds them, a person is the same thing as a rock: a bunch of particles that exist in a specific configuration occupyng a specific place at a specific moment in time
Doesnt that imply there is no need for evolution, abiogenesis, big bang etc. etc.
of course there's no NEED for it. what NEEDS it? doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening, of course
of course there's no NEED for it. what NEEDS it? doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening, of course
So you are sayibng that the universe just is as it is. Just exists the way it is without any reason or order?
prole is smert
This makes no sense to me. It is like saying that 1 centimetre is no difference to a metre to the universe.
@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.
@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.matter itself cannot be defined. we can say what we observe but we know (after trial & error) that our assumptions are often incorrect. Even in this century, we constantly discover new things about the way that the universe works. You shouldn't assume anything is not a theory. This is why it is impossible to prove God as it is also impossible to disprove it.
@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.
When measurement involves simply counting out the number of a set of items or events according to the series of cardinal numbers—one, two, three, four, etc.—the scale of measurement is spoken of as an absolute scale. All other commonly recognized measurement scales are relative in the sense that they are designed to measure not the absolute number of items or events but rather the magnitude of some particular attribute—length, width, weight, temperature, velocity, electrical potential, etc.—relative to the units of some particular scale that has been designed, or has evolved, for taking the measure of that attribute.http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/webtext.html (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/webtext.html)
God is up there in heaven with celestial sized crotchet hooks, knitting the fabric of our reality. String theory explained :smug
Did god put the dinosaurs there to test your faith?
Did evolution put dinosaurs there to test your gullibility?
:smug
God is up there in heaven with celestial sized crotchet hooks, knitting the fabric of our reality. String theory explained :smug
Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.
microtransactions
steam is much better
MOM,
You've received gift copies of the games Counter-Strike and Everlasting Happiness from KEVIN
Buckle Up,
YOUR SON
God or any supranatural being is a non issue, we cant prove it one way or the other. Thats why its best ignored completely and in that aspect I think the atheist are the smartest.
atheists are just agnostics hedging their bets.
atheists are just agnostics hedging their bets.
That makes absolutely no sense.
as in they're trying to make a commitment to a particular "side" so as to show their confidence in their superior logic.atheists are just agnostics hedging their bets.
That makes absolutely no sense.
as in they're trying to make a commitment to a particular "side" so as to show their confidence in their superior logic.atheists are just agnostics hedging their bets.
That makes absolutely no sense.
It actually has nothing to do with logic. An agnostic position would make the most sense as their is no evidence for or against supernatural beings (because all evidence is obviously bound by physical laws) but the problem is that a neutral agnostic would gain no support or respect from anyone in a philosophical argument. It's as deep as looking at the mid-east conflict and saying "I'm gonna support the ones who throw rocks but don't shoot bullets because I hate war".That's the exact opposite of "hedging their bets".as in they're trying to make a commitment to a particular "side" so as to show their confidence in their superior logic.atheists are just agnostics hedging their bets.That makes absolutely no sense.
Mandark, regardless of his age you'd be wasting your time on Damian. He's "proud" of being a weeabootastic japafag.
It actually has nothing to do with logic. An agnostic position would make the most sense as their is no evidence for or against supernatural beings (because all evidence is obviously bound by physical laws) but the problem is that a neutral agnostic would gain no support or respect from anyone in a philosophical argument. It's as deep as looking at the mid-east conflict and saying "I'm gonna support the ones who throw rocks but don't shoot bullets because I hate war".That's the exact opposite of "hedging their bets".as in they're trying to make a commitment to a particular "side" so as to show their confidence in their superior logic.atheists are just agnostics hedging their bets.That makes absolutely no sense.
you follow?
you don't know my family
put me down for "maggots" plz
I always saw no afterlife and no judgement as far more relieving than a merit based afterlife.
neutral agnostics not involving themselves in polarized debate isn't tantamount to that position "not gaining support or respect from anyone". Basically what you're describing is someone choosing to pick up an AK-47 when they have the option of not getting involved in the conflict at all. Wouldn't not getting involved be a much more sensible way of "hedging your bets?"The thing is I'm convinced that they just want to have a debate that they "win", not necessarily a constructive debate.
How can someone who has put all his money on one horse be described as "hedging his bets?"
:spin :spin :spin Am Nintenho posts!!! :spin :spin :spin
(http://i43.tinypic.com/35d5dlz.jpg)
I could imagine somebody calling agnostics atheists hedging their bets.
yeah
:lol
that one was funny at least.
:lol
that one was funny at least.
no one cares what you think about it
actually he DOES care. perhaps you might have read a little book he wrote called i dunno THE BIBLE where he has some very butthurt reactions to blasphemy
You're hell spawn.
that may be true but he sure as hell isnt gonna care about what some goofball thinks about a picture on the internet. Atheist are indeed stupid.
If you ask forgiveness they are the same thing :smug
Nah man, Catholics get the same deal. Except when we ask forgiveness the penance from the priest may be different.
In this Sacrament, the penitent (repentant sinner, known as confessant) accuses himself of his sins to an ordained priest (known as confessor). The priest may then offer advice and imposes a particular penance to be performed. The penitent then prays an Act of Contrition, the priest administers absolution, thus formally forgiving the penitent of his sins, and finally sends him out with words of dismissal. Often, penitential acts consist simply of prayers, fasting, charitable work or giving, or a combination thereof. Such penance is frequently accompanied by a requirement for the penitent to be reconciled with anyone against whom he or she has sinned. The most common penances involve the recitation of standard prayers, such as the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary, meditation on particular scriptural passages, or praying the rosary with special penitential intentions. The priest is bound by the seal of confession not to reveal or discuss a penitents sins with others. Violation of the seal of confession incurs the most severe ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication for the violating priest. The confession can be made face-to-face or in a private confessional with a screen dividing the priest and person confessing sins.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2u7swgz.jpg)
(http://i42.tinypic.com/241la9c.jpg)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/5vapur.png)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/5vapur.png)
:lol :lol :lol
GUYS WHO MADE GOD
Kiss me, ps.