THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Flannel Boy on April 28, 2007, 04:34:59 PM
-
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/385522925.html (http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/385522925.html)
Cameron ("Growing Pains" sitcom and Left Behind movies) will speak on what he believes is a major catalyst for atheism: Darwinian evolution. The popular actor stated, "Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory. The issue of intelligent design is extremely relevant at the moment. Atheism has become very popular in universities--where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings. Cameron will also reveal what it was that convinced him that God did exist.
"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," Comfort added, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.
:lol :lol
Kirk's evidence (http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/london_bananas_mar_05.jpg)
-
:lol :lol :lol
-
Funny, I just watched that banana video for the first time in a while last night.
:lol
-
what banana video?
-
I'm so fed up with people. So sick of everyone. Between reading that giant White Nationalist forum and shit like this, I can't comprehend how even now people this ridiculous are still breathing.
-
what banana video?
Kirk Cameron proves that evolution is wrong with the help of fruit!
By the by Ashley Olson will prove that the mind is independent from the body on Dateline.
-
Father Mike http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4)
-
:-\
I do not support this
-
:-\
I do not support this
Oh, no?
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not
-
it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.
-
it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.
How does that disprove the existance of a higher being though?
-
it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.
How does that disprove the existance of a higher being though?
I believe in God sir but cameron rambled about evolution, and creationism has no logical claim for the lack of human fossils alongside dino's other than "god placed them there to tempt us".
-
it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.
How does that disprove the existance of a higher being though?
I believe in God sir but cameron rambled about evolution, and creationism has no logical claim for the lack of human fossils alongside dino's other than "god placed them there to tempt us".
Has he actually said that? I've never heard that argument before you made it last week. It's very good in fact, and I honestly can't combat it
-
You don't look for a solution with science, you just look at all the scientific possibilities for a problem and scientists only look for those possiblities because that's their job.
He didn't use fucking wild bananas.
-
I can't wait to see this "undeniable" evidence. Personally I have a feeling it'll be embarrassing. Not as much as Banana-Gate, but close.
You don't challenge evolution with the Bible. You challenge it with science, and you have to have an understanding of the theory. There's no denying certain aspects of evolution, especially ones that can be clearly demonstrated like bug's resistance to sprays.
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.
He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.
*I'm an athiest*
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.
He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.
*I'm an athiest*
Yeah, I got that jest, and I've heard it for some time now. There is a lack of morals in this country imo, but I don't think that is what caused the shooting. You don't have to be a Christian to have the morals to realize shooting 32 people for nothing isn't "right". ::)
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.
He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.
*I'm an athiest*
Yeah, I got that jest, and I've heard it for some time now. There is a lack of morals in this country imo, but I don't think that is what caused the shooting. You don't have to be a Christian to have the morals to realize shooting 32 people for nothing isn't "right". ::)
Not having moral absolutes means there is no good or evil. Actions can be judged on whatever grounds value is placed on, if it is emotion, then emotion can justify killing 32 people. To a psycho. To most people, it'll just justify whatever stupid whimsical shit they feel like doing that day.
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not
How does disbelief in a creator take faith?
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.
He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.
*I'm an athiest*
Yeah, I got that jest, and I've heard it for some time now. There is a lack of morals in this country imo, but I don't think that is what caused the shooting. You don't have to be a Christian to have the morals to realize shooting 32 people for nothing isn't "right". ::)
Not having moral absolutes means there is no good or evil. Actions can be judged on whatever grounds value is placed on, if it is emotion, then emotion can justify killing 32 people. To a psycho. To most people, it'll just justify whatever stupid whimsical shit they feel like doing that day.
It's been confirmed that Cho was indeed a psycho.
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not
If there is an absence of evidence for a given entity we are left with no reason to believe such an entity exists. The lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns doesn't make people agnostic on the issue of unicorns. Nobody claims it is a matter of faith. Yet God is different?
What would evidence that God does not exist even look like? The failure to find any evidence for God's existence is evidence that there's no reason to suppose such a being exists. There is no evidence that an elephant is sleeping in my room, this lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe that there is an elephant in my bed.
God offers no explanatory power, makes the universe less coherent, and many of the traditional definitions are inconsistent. There is NO reason to believe such a being exists.
-
Father Mike http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4)
O shit I've seen that before. lol. can't wait for ABC show.
-
Father Mike http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4)
O shit I've seen that before. lol. can't wait for ABC show.
It will be kind of painful.
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not
If there is an absence of evidence for a given entity we are left with no reason to believe such an entity exists. The lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns doesn't make people agnostic on the issue of unicorns. Nobody claims it is a matter of faith. Yet God is different?
What would evidence that God does not exist even look like? The failure to find any evidence for God's existence is evidence that there's no reason to suppose such a being exists. There is no evidence that an elephant is sleeping in my room, this lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe that there is an elephant in my bed.
God offers no explanatory power, makes the universe less coherent, and many of the traditional definitions are inconsistent. There is NO reason to believe such a being exists.
The problem with your analagies is that you're comparing beings of weight and matter (physical things we can touch and see) to something that is not physical. We simply don't know whether there is a higher being or not, and it's not hard to imagine why we wouldn't find evidence of his existant.
Can we definitely say there is no such thing as life in outer space?
-
[youtube=425,350]aLqQttJinjo[/youtube]
hm
-
Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not
If there is an absence of evidence for a given entity we are left with no reason to believe such an entity exists. The lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns doesn't make people agnostic on the issue of unicorns. Nobody claims it is a matter of faith. Yet God is different?
What would evidence that God does not exist even look like? The failure to find any evidence for God's existence is evidence that there's no reason to suppose such a being exists. There is no evidence that an elephant is sleeping in my room, this lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe that there is an elephant in my bed.
God offers no explanatory power, makes the universe less coherent, and many of the traditional definitions are inconsistent. There is NO reason to believe such a being exists.
The problem with your analagies is that you're comparing beings of weight and matter (physical things we can touch and see) to something that is not physical. We simply don't know whether there is a higher being or not, and it's not hard to imagine why we wouldn't find evidence of his existant.
Can we definitely say there is no such thing as life in outer space?
Quick name all the beings that exist that are not composed of matter:
...
Just because the concept of God is often defined as a being that is beyond space and time, there is no reason to suppose there is an actual spaceless being. That is, 'spaceless being' is a vacuous predicate that does not denote a single being. It is doubly vacuous because there is no evidence such property could even be had in principle.
There is evidence that would lead one to believe that life on other planets is likely (billions of planets, evidence that life once existed on the closest planet to our own). There is no evidence that would lead you to believe that there is omnipotent and omnibenevelant being. Just the opposite (see Hume and Epicurus).
-
I believe in nearly every legendary beast.
-
I believe in nearly every legendary beast.
ok
-
If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them :-\
-
If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them :-\
Good thing for you that, according to a new study, IQ and wealth are not correlated.*
*study is bunk
-
I think there is life in outer space. I doubt our planet is the only one being inhabited. This whole God thing is another story, though.
-
If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them :-\
Good thing for you that, according to a new study, IQ and wealth are not correlated.*
*study is bunk
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7435/liljohngrillzxn7.jpg)
yeaaaaahhhh
-
If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them :-\
Good thing for you that, according to a new study, IQ and wealth are not correlated.*
*study is bunk
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7435/liljohngrillzxn7.jpg)
yeaaaaahhhh
(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7920/collegehumor25b1a8cf47dky2.jpg)
-
That fucking video gets me everytime. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
That fucking video gets me everytime. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Behold! THE ATHEIST'S NIGHTMARE
-
I believe in nearly every legendary beast.
big foot? you believe in big foot?
-
If science is a lie than how would using science prove anything since the proof is lies!?
-
If science is a lie than how would using science prove anything since the proof is lies!?
That's because evolution is a pseudo-science. --Kirk Cameron and Phoenix Dark
-
If science is a lie than how would using science prove anything since the proof is lies!?
It would be like nothing becoming something
-
I believe in nearly every legendary beast.
big foot? you believe in big foot?
>:(
-
We have Kirk's proof. He ditches the banana for a can of coke.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14055 (http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14055)
His associate uses William Paley's watchmaker argument, but replaces the watch with a can of coke! It's 2007, stop being so silly!
A coke can is designed
The universe is more complicated than a can of coke
Therefore the universe was designed, and it was designed by God.
lol
-
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
"Soda makers put a tab on top of soda cans, so God thought thats a good idea and put a tab on bananas"
wtf
This is really dumbed down.
-
"Soda makers put a tab on top of soda cans, so God thought thats a good idea and put a tab on bananas"
wtf
This is really dumbed down.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
I hope this is a joke.
-
bump for PD
-
Thank you omg
Ok, my question: Basically Kirk brings up the tired argument about the watch looking complex, therefore it was created, therefore it has a creator, etc; he used the idea of a camera instead though and compared it to the eye, but you get it: same thing.
It's not hard for me to see that this is a fallacy, despite my biases. But how would you respond to that claim? I'm watching the debate right now and it seems like both sides aren't that capible of explaining their postions
-
Thank you omg
Ok, my question: Basically Kirk brings up the tired argument about the watch looking complex, therefore it was created, therefore it has a creator, etc; he used the idea of a camera instead though and compared it to the eye, but you get it: same thing.
It's not hard for me to see that this is a fallacy, despite my biases. But how would you respond to that claim? I'm watching the debate right now and it seems like both sides aren't that capible of explaining their postions
Since I'm lazy, I'll copy and paste what I posted at OA
We can posit a camera maker because we know through experience how cameras are made. We have no such experience of the universe. We have no experience of universe-makers like we have of camera-makers or watch makers. Furthermore cameras are made by many people working at once, if one is to follow the analogy to its logical conclusion, then the universe was created by many intelligent beings. Also since the universe contains many imperfections (that is unless you consider parasites, cancer, and natural disasters to be perfect) we can conclude that the designer(s) is not perfect either.
All the above criticism were made by Hume, almost 300 years ago!
The biggest problem with the analogy is that we know a camera needs a designer because it is an artifact, created by human beings. There is no evidence that the universe or the eye is an artifact. We distinguish an artifact from a natural object not by the end of the object, for a hammer and a rock can both be used for the same end, but by the evidence of the machinery and the materials from which the objects are made. There is no evidence that eyes were created by an intelligent designer, but we have plenty of evidence that it was created by a natural process over hundreds of millions of years.
-
Thank you omg
Ok, my question: Basically Kirk brings up the tired argument about the watch looking complex, therefore it was created, therefore it has a creator, etc; he used the idea of a camera instead though and compared it to the eye, but you get it: same thing.
It's not hard for me to see that this is a fallacy, despite my biases. But how would you respond to that claim? I'm watching the debate right now and it seems like both sides aren't that capible of explaining their postions
Since I'm lazy, I'll copy and paste what I posted at OA
We can posit a camera maker because we know through experience how cameras are made. We have no such experience of the universe. We have no experience of universe-makers like we have of camera-makers or watch makers. Furthermore cameras are made by many people working at once, if one is to follow the analogy to its logical conclusion, then the universe was created by many intelligent beings. Also since the universe contains many imperfections (that is unless you consider parasites, cancer, and natural disasters to be perfect) we can conclude that the designer(s) is not perfect either.
All the above criticism were made by Hume, almost 300 years ago!
The biggest problem with the analogy is that we know a camera needs a designer because it is an artifact, created by human beings. There is no evidence that the universe or the eye is an artifact. We distinguish an artifact from a natural object not by the end of the object, for a hammer and a rock can both be used for the same end, but by the evidence of the machinery and the materials from which the objects are made. There is no evidence that eyes were created by an intelligent designer, but we have plenty of evidence that it was created by a natural process over hundreds of millions of years.
What if we discovered some type of creation unknown to us, something never seen before. Would it be logical to assume that it had a creator, or that it just appeared?
-
it would be logical to operate from the position that we don't know shit and shouldn't be surprised when proof of our ignorance is revealed. accepting that, the basic tools of science can be engaged to determine how it originated.
home schooling may have provided all the answers, pd; the real world, however, does not.
-
the first thing we would take an interest in in a being we've never seen before would be whether or not it has a creator when we can't prove that for ourselves?
-
it would be logical to operate from the position that we don't know shit and shouldn't be surprised when proof of our ignorance is revealed. accepting that, the basic tools of science can be engaged to determine how it originated.
home schooling may have provided all the answers, pd; the real world, however, does not.
What is that ignorance though?
I find it hard to believe that if we did indeed find an object so alien and unknown to us that we couldn't explain it's creation, it would be logical to believe it just appeared. But at the same time I understand your position that we could also say we don't know where it came from, and study it instead of jumping to conclusions right away - which, I'll be fair, is what I'm doing
-
What if we discovered some type of creation unknown to us, something never seen before. Would it be logical to assume that it had a creator, or that it just appeared?
Well obviously that depends on the object. Anthropologists and archaeologists have their own criteria and I'm sure they come against this problem all the time. The thing is, the universe is not in itself an artifact, that much we can be sure of. The universe can be explained through a natural process, and the positing of a God does not help explain the universe one bit.
What is that ignorance though?
I find it hard to believe that if we did indeed find an object so alien and unknown to us that we couldn't explain it's creation, it would be logical to believe it just appeared. But at the same time I understand your position that we could also say we don't know where it came from, and study it instead of jumping to conclusions right away - which, I'll be fair, is what I'm doing
Artifacts are created by beings with bodies that can manipulate natural objects. If we found an alien object, an artifact, that humans did not create, God would not be much of an explanation for the object in question.
-
I've actually got a question. Why's there always this war between evolution and creationism? I don't really understand how evolution entirely disproves creationism, or rather that it proves that we could exist without a god. I do not have a firm grasp on evolution by any means, but where did cells come from? How did all this shit come from nothing?
-
I've actually got a question. Why's there always this war between evolution and creationism? I don't really understand how evolution entirely disproves creationism, or rather that it proves that we could exist without a god. I do not have a firm grasp on evolution by any means, but where did cells come from? How did all this shit come from nothing?
One can believe in God and evolution. However one can not believe in creationism and evolution as the two positions contradict each other in many obvious respects.
-
I've actually got a question. Why's there always this war between evolution and creationism? I don't really understand how evolution entirely disproves creationism, or rather that it proves that we could exist without a god. I do not have a firm grasp on evolution by any means, but where did cells come from? How did all this shit come from nothing?
One can believe in God and evolution. However one can not believe in creationism and evolution as the two positions contradict each other in many obvious respects.
Yes, but how? Evolution strives to provide a logical explanation for the development of life, and how all life came to be. But so far all I've seen is how everything moved on from a certain point. Again, I'm not well versed on the subject at all. I'm reading the Blind Watchmaker at the moment.
-
Artifacts are created by beings with bodies that can manipulate natural objects. If we found an alien object, an artifact, that humans did not create, God would not be much of an explanation for the object in question.
I'm not suggesting, or jumping to the conclusion that "God" created this artifact though. He wouldn't be the only possible creator for such an unknown artifact, correct?
Well obviously that depends on the object. Anthropologists and archaeologists have their own criteria and I'm sure they come against this problem all the time. The thing is, the universe is not in itself an artifact, that much we can be sure of. The universe can be explained through a natural process, and the positing of a God does not help explain the universe one bit.
When we talk of the creation of the universe we aren't talking about evolution, correct? Now that we are off the issue of evolution though, how is the creation of the universe explained? In the video it was suggested that it has simply always been there in one degree or another, and just has gone through changes from phenomenas such as the big bang. Why is it logical to suggest that the universe has simply been around forever, but illogical to suggest a higher being has been around forever? Both arguments seem to be based on the idea that a particular thing - a universe or a higher being - have been around forever, and have no beginning or (presumably) end
-
When we talk of the creation of the universe we aren't talking about evolution, correct? Now that we are off the issue of evolution though, how is the creation of the universe explained? In the video it was suggested that it has simply always been there in one degree or another, and just has gone through changes from phenomenas such as the big bang. Why is it logical to suggest that the universe has simply been around forever, but illogical to suggest a higher being has been around forever? Both arguments seem to be based on the idea that a particular thing - a universe or a higher being - have been around forever, and have no beginning or (presumably) end
Uhh, IIRC it's pretty commonly agreed upon that the universe did have a beginning, IE it didn't exist forever. "Something came from nothing." Remember Hawking's lecture?
-
Whoa look out everybody, Pee Dee was the homeschool valedictorian.
-
creation of universe is different than creation of life. who said the universe was around forever?
-
When we talk of the creation of the universe we aren't talking about evolution, correct? Now that we are off the issue of evolution though, how is the creation of the universe explained? In the video it was suggested that it has simply always been there in one degree or another, and just has gone through changes from phenomenas such as the big bang. Why is it logical to suggest that the universe has simply been around forever, but illogical to suggest a higher being has been around forever? Both arguments seem to be based on the idea that a particular thing - a universe or a higher being - have been around forever, and have no beginning or (presumably) end
Uhh, IIRC it's pretty commonly agreed upon that the universe did have a beginning, IE it didn't exist forever. "Something came from nothing." Remember Hawking's lecture?
Ah ok; I thought it was believed that the universe was forever, but "empty" for a long time before phenomenas such as the big bang filled out the space, so to speak.
Is there anywhere else in biology or science where something is derived from nothing?
-
Yes, but how? Evolution strives to provide a logical explanation for the development of life, and how all life came to be. But so far all I've seen is how everything moved on from a certain point. Again, I'm not well versed on the subject at all. I'm reading the Blind Watchmaker at the moment.
I believe you are not talking about some version of Biblical creationism but rather some sort theistic evolution belief where God starts the process of evolution. The latter position is not really creationism, at least how it is normally understood.
When we talk of the creation of the universe we aren't talking about evolution, correct? Now that we are off the issue of evolution though, how is the creation of the universe explained? In the video it was suggested that it has simply always been there in one degree or another, and just has gone through changes from phenomenas such as the big bang. Why is it logical to suggest that the universe has simply been around forever, but illogical to suggest a higher being has been around forever? Both arguments seem to be based on the idea that a particular thing - a universe or a higher being - have been around forever, and have no beginning or (presumably) end
Well, one explanation is far more plausible than the other. We know the universe exists, or at least can be fairly certain that it does exist, and only have to add that it is infinite. With God we have to add another entity to the universe and then explain how this entity was created and how it interacts with the universe. It is a less parsimonious solution and there is no evidence to believe that it is true.
-
Yes, but how? Evolution strives to provide a logical explanation for the development of life, and how all life came to be. But so far all I've seen is how everything moved on from a certain point. Again, I'm not well versed on the subject at all. I'm reading the Blind Watchmaker at the moment.
I believe you are not talking about some version of Biblical creationism but rather some sort theistic evolution belief where God starts the process of evolution. The latter position is not really creationism, at least how it is normally understood.
Right. But how does evolution make that impossible, or at the very least decrease the likelihood that this could be the case? Obviously it can't properly coincide with traditional religious views of creationism, but it doesn't mean there is an alternative truth that we're unaware of. What is the source of the most basic building blocks of life? Where did cells, atoms, and quarks come from?
-
Well, one explanation is far more plausible than the other. We know the universe exists, or at least can be fairly certain that it does exist, and only have to add that it is infinite. With God we have to add another entity to the universe and then explain how this entity was created and how it interacts with the universe. It is less parsimonious solution and there is no evidence to believe that it is true.
In other words it's more simple to believe there is no God - because of the various things we'd have to explain if there was - therefore there is no God? Occam's razor
We have open and obvious evidence that there is a Universe, we do not have any evidence that there is a God. That's the argument, correct? And you do not accept that the universe is evidence of God's existance for reasons mentioned earlier.
-
physically, time, NOT MATTER, came from nothing. that is an arbitrary definition. any physical thing is defined by time and that's why the definition has to be changed with new discoveries.
-
Perhaps the putz from Growing Pains should have tried a different argument than the one King Kong Humungadunga of current atheists hadn't already tackled over 20 years ago:
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4239761-3637662?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178997647&sr=8-1
-
Ugh. Why try to prove this one way or another? I believe there is a God, but I believe that some evolution of species has taken place. Bottom line: we're really pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Hell, its only been a few hundred years since we "discovered" a giant chunk of the world. We've barely had our own world intercommunicating with one another, we can't even get our asses to another single planet in our small little solar system - much less outside the galaxy to see the billions of those out there. Anyone who tries to explain shit or is 100% for sure there is no God is pretty arrogant - because we don't know crap. On the atheist side, it comes down to 'we cant see you, so your not there' and religions sode we have ancient religious leaders (yes I believe in one of them), but we can't know for sure. Look how much paranormal shit that happens in this world you can't explain - ghosts, UFO's, near death experiences, etc; there's no way someone could be arrogant or distinguished mentally-challenged enough to say the only thing that exists is the physcial dimension. Even the beloved science arguments now say there are probably 10-11 dimension of things we don't know about.
-
Ugh. Why try to prove this one way or another? I believe there is a God, but I believe that some evolution of species has taken place. Bottom line: we're really pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Hell, its only been a few hundred years since we "discovered" a giant chunk of the world. We've barely had our own world intercommunicating with one another, we can't even get our asses to another single planet in our small little solar system - much less outside the galaxy to see the billions of those out there. Anyone who tries to explain shit or is 100% for sure there is no God is pretty arrogant - because we don't know crap. On the atheist side, it comes down to 'we cant see you, so your not there' and religions sode we have ancient religious leaders (yes I believe in one of them), but we can't know for sure. Look how much paranormal shit that happens in this world you can't explain - ghosts, UFO's, near death experiences, etc; there's no way someone could be arrogant or distinguished mentally-challenged enough to say the only thing that exists is the physcial dimension. Even the beloved science arguments now say there are probably 10-11 dimension of things we don't know about.
First of all, Superstring Theory is distinguished mentally-challenged, and a large majority of the scientific community has pretty much abandoned it.
Second, lolparanormal. Ghosts? :lol And how would UFO's support the existence of God in any way? You don't believe that in this massive, constantly expanding universe with hundreds of thousands of galaxies and billions of planets that there can not be intelligent life anywhere? Right.
-
Ugh. Why try to prove this one way or another? I believe there is a God, but I believe that some evolution of species has taken place. Bottom line: we're really pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Hell, its only been a few hundred years since we "discovered" a giant chunk of the world. We've barely had our own world intercommunicating with one another, we can't even get our asses to another single planet in our small little solar system - much less outside the galaxy to see the billions of those out there. Anyone who tries to explain shit or is 100% for sure there is no God is pretty arrogant - because we don't know crap. On the atheist side, it comes down to 'we cant see you, so your not there' and religions sode we have ancient religious leaders (yes I believe in one of them), but we can't know for sure. Look how much paranormal shit that happens in this world you can't explain - ghosts, UFO's, near death experiences, etc; there's no way someone could be arrogant or distinguished mentally-challenged enough to say the only thing that exists is the physcial dimension. Even the beloved science arguments now say there are probably 10-11 dimension of things we don't know about.
First of all, Superstring Theory is distinguished mentally-challenged, and a large majority of the scientific community has pretty much abandoned it.
Second, lolparanormal. Ghosts? :lol And how would UFO's support the existence of God in any way? You don't believe that in this massive, constantly expanding universe with hundreds of thousands of galaxies and billions of planets that there can not be intelligent life anywhere? Right.
Point being, there's something there that is not of the physical world. I'm not saying that proves or disproves a God, but being nieve to say what you see is what you get is pretty damn distinguished mentally-challenged. There is some weird shit out there thats happened to a lot of people with lots of different subjects. Ghosts, demons, UFO's, abductions, etc. The very vanilla physical, we're the only ones out there type of world some people believe in is pretty arrogant to think of - because we as humanity don't know jack shit about anything.
-
Ugh. Why try to prove this one way or another? I believe there is a God, but I believe that some evolution of species has taken place. Bottom line: we're really pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Hell, its only been a few hundred years since we "discovered" a giant chunk of the world. We've barely had our own world intercommunicating with one another, we can't even get our asses to another single planet in our small little solar system - much less outside the galaxy to see the billions of those out there. Anyone who tries to explain shit or is 100% for sure there is no God is pretty arrogant - because we don't know crap. On the atheist side, it comes down to 'we cant see you, so your not there' and religions sode we have ancient religious leaders (yes I believe in one of them), but we can't know for sure. Look how much paranormal shit that happens in this world you can't explain - ghosts, UFO's, near death experiences, etc; there's no way someone could be arrogant or distinguished mentally-challenged enough to say the only thing that exists is the physcial dimension. Even the beloved science arguments now say there are probably 10-11 dimension of things we don't know about.
First of all, Superstring Theory is distinguished mentally-challenged, and a large majority of the scientific community has pretty much abandoned it.
Second, lolparanormal. Ghosts? :lol And how would UFO's support the existence of God in any way? You don't believe that in this massive, constantly expanding universe with hundreds of thousands of galaxies and billions of planets that there can not be intelligent life anywhere? Right.
Point being, there's something there that is not of the physical world. I'm not saying that proves or disproves a God, but being nieve to say what you see is what you get is pretty damn distinguished mentally-challenged. There is some weird shit out there thats happened to a lot of people with lots of different subjects. Ghosts, demons, UFO's, abductions, etc. The very vanilla physical, we're the only ones out there type of world some people believe in is pretty arrogant to think of - because we as humanity don't know jack shit about anything.
Mind pointing me towards any sound experiences related to abductions, near death experiences, demons, and ghosts that are entirely credible?
-
Ugh. Why try to prove this one way or another? I believe there is a God, but I believe that some evolution of species has taken place. Bottom line: we're really pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Hell, its only been a few hundred years since we "discovered" a giant chunk of the world. We've barely had our own world intercommunicating with one another, we can't even get our asses to another single planet in our small little solar system - much less outside the galaxy to see the billions of those out there. Anyone who tries to explain shit or is 100% for sure there is no God is pretty arrogant - because we don't know crap. On the atheist side, it comes down to 'we cant see you, so your not there' and religions sode we have ancient religious leaders (yes I believe in one of them), but we can't know for sure. Look how much paranormal shit that happens in this world you can't explain - ghosts, UFO's, near death experiences, etc; there's no way someone could be arrogant or distinguished mentally-challenged enough to say the only thing that exists is the physcial dimension. Even the beloved science arguments now say there are probably 10-11 dimension of things we don't know about.
First of all, Superstring Theory is distinguished mentally-challenged, and a large majority of the scientific community has pretty much abandoned it.
Second, lolparanormal. Ghosts? :lol And how would UFO's support the existence of God in any way? You don't believe that in this massive, constantly expanding universe with hundreds of thousands of galaxies and billions of planets that there can not be intelligent life anywhere? Right.
Point being, there's something there that is not of the physical world. I'm not saying that proves or disproves a God, but being nieve to say what you see is what you get is pretty damn distinguished mentally-challenged. There is some weird shit out there thats happened to a lot of people with lots of different subjects. Ghosts, demons, UFO's, abductions, etc. The very vanilla physical, we're the only ones out there type of world some people believe in is pretty arrogant to think of - because we as humanity don't know jack shit about anything.
Mind pointing me towards any sound experiences related to abductions, near death experiences, demons, and ghosts that are entirely credible?
None you would believe, no, so its pointless. Why bother arguing with someone who has a closed mind? I'll you and example, just for the heck of it.
I saw this one on Nightline, about a young boy who has a past life regression experience, his name was James (also his name in the past life) who said things about being a WWII pilot, and wasn't exposed to any WWII documentaries or anything. I'm sure you're response will be "well lolz he's a kid he can change the channel on the TV" or some ignorant response - except for the fact the name of the pilot checks out, he pointed out specific things about the type of plane that only pilots would know, where he was shot down, around what island, and the first and last name of who his best friend was. And it all checked out. So you can't tell me that shit was in any documentary (which it wasn't, especially the inpossible thing of pointing out the first and last name of his best friend during that time - who was still alive and they actually MET). It's personally my favorite story of past life regression I've heard. This is kind of a short article on it, but I've read more in detail things about it at other sites.
Here's the story if you want to open your mind a little:
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Technology/story?id=894217&page=1
-
Ugh. Why try to prove this one way or another? I believe there is a God, but I believe that some evolution of species has taken place. Bottom line: we're really pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Hell, its only been a few hundred years since we "discovered" a giant chunk of the world. We've barely had our own world intercommunicating with one another, we can't even get our asses to another single planet in our small little solar system - much less outside the galaxy to see the billions of those out there. Anyone who tries to explain shit or is 100% for sure there is no God is pretty arrogant - because we don't know crap. On the atheist side, it comes down to 'we cant see you, so your not there' and religions sode we have ancient religious leaders (yes I believe in one of them), but we can't know for sure. Look how much paranormal shit that happens in this world you can't explain - ghosts, UFO's, near death experiences, etc; there's no way someone could be arrogant or distinguished mentally-challenged enough to say the only thing that exists is the physcial dimension. Even the beloved science arguments now say there are probably 10-11 dimension of things we don't know about.
First of all, Superstring Theory is distinguished mentally-challenged, and a large majority of the scientific community has pretty much abandoned it.
Second, lolparanormal. Ghosts? :lol And how would UFO's support the existence of God in any way? You don't believe that in this massive, constantly expanding universe with hundreds of thousands of galaxies and billions of planets that there can not be intelligent life anywhere? Right.
Point being, there's something there that is not of the physical world. I'm not saying that proves or disproves a God, but being nieve to say what you see is what you get is pretty damn distinguished mentally-challenged. There is some weird shit out there thats happened to a lot of people with lots of different subjects. Ghosts, demons, UFO's, abductions, etc. The very vanilla physical, we're the only ones out there type of world some people believe in is pretty arrogant to think of - because we as humanity don't know jack shit about anything.
Mind pointing me towards any sound experiences related to abductions, near death experiences, demons, and ghosts that are entirely credible?
None you would believe, no, so its pointless. Why bother arguing with someone who has a closed mind? I'll you and example, just for the heck of it.
I saw this one on Nightline, about a young boy who has a past life regression experience, his name was James (also his name in the past life) who said things about being a WWII pilot, and wasn't exposed to any WWII documentaries or anything. I'm sure you're response will be "well lolz he's a kid he can change the channel on the TV" or some ignorant response - except for the fact the name of the pilot checks out, he pointed out specific things about the type of plane that only pilots would know, where he was shot down, around what island, and the first and last name of who his best friend was. And it all checked out. So you can't tell me that shit was in any documentary (which it wasn't, especially the inpossible thing of pointing out the first and last name of his best friend during that time - who was still alive and they actually MET). It's personally my favorite story of past life regression I've heard. This is kind of a short article on it, but I've read more in detail things about it at other sites.
Here's the story if you want to open your mind a little:
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Technology/story?id=894217&page=1
You have me pegged all wrong. If I were close minded then I'd be more likely to accept religion in the first place. Anyway, the problem I have with things like this is my skepticism. I can't help but feel a lot of it is either created for attention, money, or manipulation. Or just to weird people out. Things like these I'd have to experience myself. Sorry if I insulted you or anything.
-
I'dd agree there are a lot of people out for money maybe, but I think the vast majority aren't - they just wanna tell their tale of what happened to them. I could understand if people say things, then go out and try to make profit, but I don't think a lot are. Weird stuff happens, and it seems to me the easier thing to do would just to shut up about it and pretend it never happened, instead of being ridiculed by closed minded individuals.
-
Odd that nobody has ever claimed the one million dollar Randi prize.
Human testimony is anecdotal evidence and should be approached with extreme skepticism.
-
Even if any of this was true, how would it support the idea of God?
-
I'm not making these statements to support for or against God's existence, just pointing out that we really don't know jack about the world we live in, so why are any one of us an authority on trying to prove/disprove something above the laws of nature? The standard response to any of it, is to completely attack someone's credibility if something unexplainable occured and say they have alterior motives. I mean I've had a couple of very simple things happen to me I'm not really sure how to explain, I probably wouldn't state them here just because of the fact you get attacked, called an idiot, say your making stuff up or are wrong if you try to say something.
It's really pretty horrible how closed minded society is. I think a lot has to do with the powers that be that manipulate the media towards certain areas. If you ever look at old 30's,40's, and 50's papers, you ever notice how a UFO sighting spotted by dozens of people would make the paper? Now do you ever see anything about that stuff in the paper? Not only do you not see it, but you're a wacko if you believe in it, or claim to have saw one.
-
Hicks spot UFO's every single day, so it's not really news. And most journalists know how weak unsupportable anecdotal is. YOU DON'T, HOWEVER.
-
Hicks spot UFO's every single day, so it's not really news. And most journalists know how weak unsupportable anecdotal is. YOU DON'T, HOWEVER.
ARE YOU DOUBTING MEL'S HOLE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel%27s_hole
-
Hicks spot UFO's every single day, so it's not really news. And most journalists know how weak unsupportable anecdotal is. YOU DON'T, HOWEVER.
Not talking about people sitting in their yards seeing a plane, but weird phenomina that can be recorded (ex, Phoenix Lights) or plenty of pictures out there (even before photoshop was created). Anyway, I'm done, I'm not about to get into a flame war on here about this. Continue your rants about people who believe such and such are stupid, distinguished mentally-challenged, etc, etc - whatever makes you feel better about yourself for others having a different opinion.
-
The only stupid belief is that one knows something absolutely.
-
The only stupid belief is that one knows something absolutely.
Is that something you know absolutely?
-
Oh snaps
-
The only stupid belief is that one knows something absolutely.
Is that something you know absolutely?
Absolutely not.