Do you recall me saying that if you can't disprove something it exists? I believe I said I don't know, meaning " I don't know " , but neither do you.
- Thread starter frank12
- Start date
Interview with God
Do you recall me saying that if you can't disprove something it exists? I believe I said I don't know, meaning " I don't know " , but neither do you.
Then how do you feel about Obama getting the Nobel Peace prize?
=================================================
First off, it is totally unrelated to Krauthammer being an annoying prick and getting a Pulitzer.
It was obviously a statement that his being able to be elected president of the US marked a major point in a trend by which racism was rejected in a nation in which it was institutionalized from the beginning. It was quite similar to Mandela being elected president of the Republic of South Africa. Although Barack Obama was clearly an exceptional politician, I think it was more a statement of progress in attitudes than an endorsement of Obama personally. In this aspect it was like Sadat and Begin getting the Nobel Prize marking a breakthrough in the Middle East.
Personally, I am sure I would not have awarded Krauthammer any damn prize. I am not entirely sure that I would have voted to award Obama one, either, upon his election. But I am neither Scandinavian nor a Nobel Prize judge. It is indisputable that a Black man being elected president of the US is a major event in human history, even if one does not agree with Obama's policies.
There is a claim that Krauthammer is a "witty and inciteful" essayist. I do not personally find him to be witty at all, and no more inciteful than the average rightwing commentarist, though is is obviously brighter than O'Reilly. He is more of a Jewish version of Wm. Buckley.
Being a president is a far more difficult job than standing on the sidelines and criticizing others. I find Krauthammer's opinions biased towards the Oligarchy and Obama's largely admirable. He lacks the ability to wheel and deal that LBJ had, but then again, that describes every politician in the 20th Century.
=================================================
First off, it is totally unrelated to Krauthammer being an annoying prick and getting a Pulitzer.
It was obviously a statement that his being able to be elected president of the US marked a major point in a trend by which racism was rejected in a nation in which it was institutionalized from the beginning. It was quite similar to Mandela being elected president of the Republic of South Africa. Although Barack Obama was clearly an exceptional politician, I think it was more a statement of progress in attitudes than an endorsement of Obama personally. In this aspect it was like Sadat and Begin getting the Nobel Prize marking a breakthrough in the Middle East.
Personally, I am sure I would not have awarded Krauthammer any damn prize. I am not entirely sure that I would have voted to award Obama one, either, upon his election. But I am neither Scandinavian nor a Nobel Prize judge. It is indisputable that a Black man being elected president of the US is a major event in human history, even if one does not agree with Obama's policies.
There is a claim that Krauthammer is a "witty and inciteful" essayist. I do not personally find him to be witty at all, and no more inciteful than the average rightwing commentarist, though is is obviously brighter than O'Reilly. He is more of a Jewish version of Wm. Buckley.
Being a president is a far more difficult job than standing on the sidelines and criticizing others. I find Krauthammer's opinions biased towards the Oligarchy and Obama's largely admirable. He lacks the ability to wheel and deal that LBJ had, but then again, that describes every politician in the 20th Century.
There are clearly transitional creatures that seem to provide a link between birds and mammals, of which the platypus is clearly one. There is a transition from birds to egg-laying platypus-like creatures to marsupials who breed their young in pouches to mammals like bovines who give birth to offspring that can walk nearly at birth. His method is essentially the Zeno's paradox, applied to biological evolution. Zeno claimed that all movement was impossible by reducing it to steps of ever-diminishing lengths. Zeno was wrong. of course, and so is this smug Muslim with the British accent. His argument is what is called a reductio ad absurdum, like the one about whether chickens came before eggs or vice versa. Can you show me proof of a chicken not born of an egg or a chicken's egg not laid by a chicken? The fact that you cannot and no one can does not prove that Jesus is God's son or his crucifixion renders believers forgiven. It does not prove that there is one God Allah, and that Mohammed was his last and best prophet, sorry.
The British twit that keeps asking this question neglects to state that even if he can disprove evolution (which he cannot and does not) it in no way proves that the Muslim, Christian, or Jewish religion is true. If a mutant monkey is born without a tail and mates with another tailless monkey, then the offspring is an ape, according to the way we classify species.
The British twit that keeps asking this question neglects to state that even if he can disprove evolution (which he cannot and does not) it in no way proves that the Muslim, Christian, or Jewish religion is true. If a mutant monkey is born without a tail and mates with another tailless monkey, then the offspring is an ape, according to the way we classify species.
no wonder the number of agnostics in increasing
btw, I do wonder why 'nature' force human to cover their body to protect from the enviroment/weather, while animals dont care.
cold weather can kill you, reason why many ex-pat stay in DR
It means there's hope for you if you repeat this mantra which polish the mirror of your mind so it can reflect divine light more clearly and brightly. I will not eat yellow snow or AKAL, MAHA KAL. This will you remove all your fear of CB.
I'm a nonbeliever in God, however if he had asked the question about Aids as a believer in Evolution I would have to say AIDS/HIV is also a product of the evolutionary chain. You can't have something's God created and other things not. It all or nothing. He wasn't asking people whether they believed in God, he was asking them about proving the theory of evolution based on the rules of scientific proof.
Religion seems to be a necessary item for a large number of people. I don't believe that there will ever come a time when religion does not exist and influence many people, or that anyone should even try to extinguish religion.
But again, even if evolution could be entirely disproven, (and it cannot) it would not mean that creationism is true entirely, in part, or at all. I think there is ample reason to believe that evolution is the best theory about how living things came to exist in their present form. And again, the argument that the interviewer uses, ie to ask people to spontaneously prove that evolution has caused one species to evolve from another is a type of logical fallacy known as the reductio ad absurdum. like the bit demanding that one conclude that eggs came before chickens or vice versa.
Religion has done much harm in the past, but it also has done a lot of good. If one does the right thing for the wrong reason,. that does not change the fact that they have done the right thing. after all.
But again, even if evolution could be entirely disproven, (and it cannot) it would not mean that creationism is true entirely, in part, or at all. I think there is ample reason to believe that evolution is the best theory about how living things came to exist in their present form. And again, the argument that the interviewer uses, ie to ask people to spontaneously prove that evolution has caused one species to evolve from another is a type of logical fallacy known as the reductio ad absurdum. like the bit demanding that one conclude that eggs came before chickens or vice versa.
Religion has done much harm in the past, but it also has done a lot of good. If one does the right thing for the wrong reason,. that does not change the fact that they have done the right thing. after all.
the question posed to atheists was smug and condescending, evolution is about adaptation genetic reforming and selection of the fittest, no one has ever suggested that dogs were cats and elephants were snakes, bt rather that as you go back in time you can see how some species have evolevd and bear little or no resemblence to their original forms. For example a dberman Pischer dog did not exist beofr 1870 no such dog, but Louis Doberman took the german pischer and bred in rottweiler and some great dane and through selective breading he created a new species of dog with distinctive look size coloration and a transferable genetic makeup. No one has suggeste dthat we evolved from monkeys or apes but rather that as primates (which we are) we eveolved in homo sapiens and in fact today een now we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzies and 4% of our DNA is neanderthal in caucasian persons. Followers of religion have nothing but faith and no proof what so ever that what they believe in is real, and yet they mock evolution becuase one question designed to have no answer, as it is an impossibility, can not be "answered". So here is one for all you religous scholars, what year was lucifer born, and how old was he when he was cast out from heaven?
Hell from an engineering approach
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid term . The answer was so profound that the Professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."
This student received the only A.
jokes > Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington engineering mid term . The answer was so profound that the Professor shared it with colleagues, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you." and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."
This student received the only A.
jokes > Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?
Your talking Genetics not evolution, however evolution makes sense while creationism doesn't.
What was the " cause " that created the Universe - Big Bang theory or ...............? Lucifer aka joseito isn't that old, under 60 anyways.
Creation or Evolution....?
Check this out!
[video=youtube;OnjuGYqtJos]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnjuGYqtJos[/video]
Check this out!
[video=youtube;OnjuGYqtJos]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnjuGYqtJos[/video]
evolution is based in part on genetic change and modification the two are intertwined, hell everything about nature is intertwined. I would believe we were special god made amazing creatures if, we did not mate like animals, gestate like animals, give birth like animals, eat and drink like animals and defectae and unrinate like animals. I like your term Bob "humanist" that is the term I use to dsecribe my self and in fact I practiced humanistic policing as oppossed to professionalism in my policing career. How I treated people while on duty was more important to me than if my boots had a high gloss shine, or I always wore my hat etc. I learned after my first few years that sometimes going by the book and being professional did more harm in some cases than if you just used some humanistic compassion and found a better way to resolve the out come of a crime or transgression. Now they call it restorative justice or tuth circles, but back then I called it humanistic policing. Some polie officers turn to religion becuas eof all the pain and misery they see, but for me it opened my eyes to the fact that there is nothing and no one pulling the strings, **** just happens. I just happened to be the guy witht the bucket and the pail cleaning it up.
I ran across this definition of God in my readings and found it to be as good a definition as there is ( my opinion)
God seems to be just a word that people use to describe the concert of magnificent forces that surround them. However, whether these forces act in.....concert or not, they are responsible for life as we know it.
God seems to be just a word that people use to describe the concert of magnificent forces that surround them. However, whether these forces act in.....concert or not, they are responsible for life as we know it.
One can never go wrong if they lead their life based on good principles and values. I would say that you were the ultimate professional police officer that did the Red Serge proud.
Evolution is genetics.
Our pathetic brains can not easily grasp the minute changes over an enormous genetic time.
Evolution is the opposite to 'chance'.
How can we accept that the hour hand of a clock moves and yet we can't see the movement? There is no inexplicable force required but to primitive man this would be a total enigma and wonder.
We are a young species and are yet to come to terms with our major survival tool..
-The ability to predict, or try to, a particular outcome of an observable event.
Religion is a way to shield us from the undesirable consequences of a bad prediction.
(No fui yo!)