Prove there's a god.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568250 Dec 2, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
how about he does some chit, like he use to....
or how about a blow-job from christ
you know
something a skeptic could believe
A sceptic is one who criticises what he is told, but is willing to beleive if he is presentied with substancial evidence.

Yet there are people who criticise not because they know the value of scepticicsm, but simply because they hate what is being introduced to them. Criticims becomes a form of "passive resistance" for them.

It makes no sense to argue with a person who resists for the mere sake of resistance, so dont let me waste my time.

What are you truly: are you a critical thinker or a resistor of what you don't like?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#568251 Dec 2, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Not "which"-but [what]. Only then can one have any basis to proceed.
Excellent point. In that, I think it's wise to ponder both questions rather than just one, while not preferring one over the other, either. However, our religions seem to agree that this "God" is an intelligent being.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568252 Dec 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we are open to listen to your alternate theory, but please try to stick to plausibility and leave out stupid stuff.
We are all ears... splain away.....
It better not start off "in the beginning" ....just saying?
My theory is not very different from evolution. My theory regards a certain Law of Equality (L.O.E.- kinda sounds like the Hebrew word for "My God", doesnt it).

It is quite a mentalistic view of things, one might say it is my own attempt to impose logic and order on the universe; but its all the same, because it is the universe that introduced the concepts of logic and order into my brain. BTW, that is all that spirituality is basically: a mentalistic view of the universe.

Anyway, the L.O.E. simply suggests that all things move from a place of high concentration to low concentration; from where they are to where they are not, under the influence of a positive "Force" until there is uniformity.

As such, everything that exists now and will exist, already existed. It is the influence of the "Positive Force" which moves things from non-existence to existence (and they just might return to non-existence)... there is more, but I should like to see if you take interest in what I have said so far, even for the sake of criticizing it.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#568253 Dec 2, 2012
Clementia wrote:
I meant TALK out of their ass! lol
Jim Carey used to do that...it wasn't so funny to me , but some people thought it was.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568254 Dec 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Why are guys in your forum are like stupid or something?
I will let you decide:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFA...
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568255 Dec 2, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion about evolution is as an expert. Your opinion on evolution is as a lay person with religious beliefs. The two are not equal, I'm afraid. Your opinion is, of course, more interesting than a creationists' opinion.
For a person who would appear so intellectually inclined; your responses are quite riddled with fallacies. Nevertheless, I should like to ask an expert:

What is natural selection?

And since natural processes have no goals (as some would say); how do you know that there is "selection" in nature?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#568256 Dec 2, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent point. In that, I think it's wise to ponder both questions rather than just one, while not preferring one over the other, either. However, our religions seem to agree that this "God" is an intelligent being.
Which, in and of itself, could simply be a misinterpretation(misunderstan ding) of previous ideology or evidence which preceded the present evolution of the dogma of present.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#568257 Dec 2, 2012
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
For a person who would appear so intellectually inclined; your responses are quite riddled with fallacies. Nevertheless, I should like to ask an expert:
What is natural selection?
And since natural processes have no goals (as some would say); how do you know that there is "selection" in nature?

Because some die before reproducing , the survivors who reproduce are "selected". It's a simple mathematical equation , the environment is hostile and hard to survive in. Those that do are
selected to do so by natural means.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#568258 Dec 2, 2012
karl44 wrote:
the universe has existed for all time
Since time had a beginning then the universe is finite.''The solution for the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.'' Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Intro by Bertrand Russell. 184. English version.
LowellGuy

Kingston, Jamaica

#568259 Dec 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Because some die before reproducing , the survivors who reproduce are "selected". It's a simple mathematical equation , the environment is hostile and hard to survive in. Those that do are
selected to do so by natural means.
Do you realize that that means nothing essentially?

What is responsible for the "selection"?

What phenomena, mechanism or process "Selects"?

Are you sure you are the expert I asked for?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#568260 Dec 2, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does.[Brahman]
[God] tends to allude to the Christian myth rather than the "generic" application of the highest element.
Oh ok, I think I kinda get that!:-)

What is your belief?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#568261 Dec 2, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Since time had a beginning then the universe is finite.''The solution for the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.'' Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Intro by Bertrand Russell. 184. English version.
I don't think so.
Take a 2 dimensional circle for example. Just exactly where is the "beginning" point? It is merely a construct of man to measure the distance of travel between two points(linear). One must "pick"(establish) a point of origin and a point of end.
Now, try that with a 3 dimensional sphere. It becomes even more complicated and difficult to establish the relation.
Now...try it in the 4th dimension...

Not "everything" is defined and restricted to the 3rd dimension, as everyone would like it to be...especially that of the construct of time(which is dependent upon the speed of light).
The "universe" is only as finite as the ability of the observer attempting to define it.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#568262 Dec 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Jim Carey used to do that...it wasn't so funny to me , but some people thought it was.
I think he's sooooooooo funny, I'm literally rofl when I watch his films.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#568263 Dec 2, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Since time had a beginning then the universe is finite.''The solution for the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.'' Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Intro by Bertrand Russell. 184. English version.
you lack education

read M theory

the universe is infinite,

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#568264 Dec 2, 2012
christianity is EVIL wrote:
no one except religious nuts claim this Something from Nothing idiocy.
the universe always existed,no gods needed.
if theres god Who created it?
www.evilbible.com
And it's attitudes and behaviors (thoughts, actions, reactions, and speech) like your's and karl44's that help this world spiral into such a negative state. So many people become offended when others don't respect their beliefs and opinions, but are quick to disrespect other's beliefs and opinions. Apparently, those with different beliefs and opinions are only accepted and respected if they're beliefs and opinions coincide with yours. Apparently, you're not much of a fan of "freedom of expression."

As to your comment regarding the universe always existing? Then, why did it take so long for this planet to become adequate for life?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568265 Dec 2, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Because some die before reproducing , the survivors who reproduce are "selected". It's a simple mathematical equation , the environment is hostile and hard to survive in. Those that do are
selected to do so by natural means.
Life came from the inanimate (accoring to some), and inanimate things are demonstrable more durable than living things.

a) Does natural selection "select" the dead ones or the living ones?

b) Were the dead ones "Naturally selected" so that they would become more durable in the state of in-animation?

OR

C) Were the living ones "Naturally Selected" so that they will have a chance to die and return to the state that they were in the first place?

C.i) But then again "c", wouldn't be evolution; it would be REVOLUTION, wouldn't it?

C.ii) I mean, if you select for something that will return to the same state of the not-selected (which it was originally in BTW); then aren't you just going in circles?

C.iii) Where is the progress in that?

C.iv) How have you developed?

C.v) What is the function of diversity?

d) If natural processes have no goal; how do you know that natural selection plays a role?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#568266 Dec 2, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you realize that that means nothing essentially?
What is responsible for the "selection"?
What phenomena, mechanism or process "Selects"?
Are you sure you are the expert I asked for?
changing circumstance is the cause of the selection, "responsibility" is a moral condition : as in, who is responsible for your lack of education?

do you have an educated question?

HELL:

do you have an honest question?
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568267 Dec 2, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
you lack education
read M theory
the universe is infinite,
THANK GOD FOR YOU, MAN!!!!

Now that we have that established, I shall like for you to expalin to me, an uneducated scrupulous lunatic:

a) Since all physical things are defined by limits; HOW CAN THE UNIVERSE BE PHYSICAL IF IT IS INFINITE?

b)...

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#568268 Dec 2, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
FYI
Some posters might have read and remember a discussion between Skombolis and me regarding the likelihood of there being intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, part of which turned to a class of microbes called extremophiles - organisms that live in extreme conditions.
These were offered as evidence that life exists wherever it can, and that it is both adaptable and hearty - part of an argument suggesting that life elsewhere in the cosmos was essentially a given.
I just saw this at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-... :
"Nearly 65 feet beneath the icy surface of a remote Antarctic lake, scientists from NASA, the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in Reno, Nev., the University of Illinois at Chicago, and nine other institutions, have uncovered a community of bacteria existing in one of Earth's darkest, saltiest and coldest habitats.
"A briny liquid, which is approximately six times saltier than seawater, percolates throughout the icy environment where the average temperature is minus 8 degrees Fahrenheit.
"Our knowledge of geochemical and microbial processes in lightless icy environments, especially at subzero temperatures, has been mostly unknown up until now."
"This system is probably the best analog we have for possible ecosystems in the subsurface waters of Saturn's moon Enceladus and Jupiter's moon Europa"
I recall the, at the time, ongoing conversation, you're talking about and had meant to post this and something here in the flesh world commanded my attention and when I returned, the conversation between Skombolis and yourself had pretty much ended, nevertheless, here is another example of a life form, here on earth, that doesn't fit into what we deem the requirements are for life, and further shows we have to allow much wider latitudes in what we can or could expect to find.




<Scientists discover first multicellular life that doesn't need oxygen>

"Oxygen may not be the staple of modern complex life that scientists once thought. Until now, the only life forms known to live exclusively in anoxic conditions were viruses, bacteria and Archaea. But in a new study, scientists have discovered three new multicellular marine species that appear to have never lived in aerobic conditions, and never metabolized oxygen."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news189836027.html#jCp

I'd also like to point out that this opens the door wider and would tend to example that life may have been able to form here on earth in more conditions than we'd ever thought, since oxygen necessity has not become the norm or inviolate rule, even for an oxygen rich planet as earth is.

Abiogenesis is likely the rule - everywhere - and not this singular and "superfreeking" special event that we sometimes think our planet possesses.

I tend to think we're(all life on earth) special in that we have evolved to this point(however primitive or advanced we may be), but I don't think we're the unique and singularly exclusive life form in the entire Universe.

To think we are the only life in the Universe is akin to thinking there are only 300 fish in the entire world, and no other life at all...

Would be putting it mildly.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#568269 Dec 2, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
changing circumstance is the cause of the selection, "responsibility" is a moral condition : as in, who is responsible for your lack of education?
do you have an educated question?
HELL:
do you have an honest question?
Is the thing which causes something to happen, not responsible for causing that thing to happen?

How is it that you cant deduce that "responsible" may be used to be synonymous with "cause"?

Who is responsible for you lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min New Age Spiritual... 649,900
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Dr Banonator 56,395
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 8 min New Age Spiritual... 445,888
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 10 min Toby 106,060
bambam 23 min brandy trujillo 5
Kristen Bell shares photos from her wedding to ... 1 hr Yahoo sale 2
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Student 44,926
my cousin touches me when i am asleep and i kin... (Mar '14) 9 hr Jesus 47
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) Fri Noname 69
More from around the web