As for me, if I have to choose between believing in a) just one unobserved but in principle observable God or b) an infinite number of unobservable even in principle parallel universes, I must pick a).
I would agree with you if that were the case, but the problem is that it seems like God is in principle unobservable according to most peoples' definitions that's I've seen, whereas currently we don't yet know if parallel universes are unobservable or not. They may be or they may not be, we may learn differently in the future. Another problem is that the multiple universe hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. Until some evidence comes in weighing in on it one way or another, it shall remain that way. If there is ever any evidence, then it may become a theory. Is there a way that you can think of to show that God may be in principle observable?
and their citations are poorly chosen to support claims that weren't in the citation! Like what you did! It's run by athetism fundamentalists to attack whoever disagrees with them.
Still waiting for you to back up those assertions of yours with some specific evidence, buddy.
No, the real answer is that you are still free not to buy the movies, but most people would rather buy them with the crap that goes along with them than do without. Breaking the law through copyright infringement isn't the answer either.
You don't understand the concept of the tree of life. First of all, please provide a specific definition of the word "kind" as it relates to classification of organisms. If you mean above the species level, this has already been addressed. Second, read "The Ancestor's Tale", that'll help you understand the concept of . Also, Talk.origins provides a complete, comprehensive list to false claims such as yours. Continuing to repeat them as if they were true can only be due to laziness or willful ignorance.
Holy shit, did you not even read the parent you are replying to? Just saying "nah-uh! no it isn't!" isn't good enough. Just because you can't comprehend the idea and scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years and generations doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Add hundreds of thousands of accumulated changes to your framework and eventually it is incompatible with your original. Just because you can't find a definitive, singular break in the continuum from Creature 1 to Creature 156,384 doesn't mean that if you stick both of them next to each other, they must still be the same thing. What fundamentally prevents all those "micro-evolutions" from resulting in "macro-evolution"? All the tired arguments about "mutations are only destructive" and "mutations don't add 'information' to the genome" only highlight ignorance about it, so try again.
Sound to me like an escuse for living a wickerd life. Ill steer cleer, thank's.
That's because 1) you haven't read it and don't have a clue what it's about, which stems from 2) you're an ignorant idiot. The most of the book is spent explaining how a gene-centric view of evolution makes sense and how it can lead to individual altruism.
Maybe that's becouse its wrong.
Wow, you've totally convinced me with that argument!
The point was that interpreting the mind of this supposed all-powerful thing is exactly what religions claim to do. Bible studies? Sermons? Ring a bell? You asked what idiots, there's your answer.
Intuition is the brain fuzzily(tm) matching patterns in the background below (or above?) conscious thought. How would you go about consciously practicing something that is (probably?) fundamentally subconscious?
No worries, everything will be cool as long as Houston makes sure not to look into laser with their remaining good eye. Someone should put a warning sticker on that thing or something...
I guess letting go of someone's past is foreign to you?
Anyone else see the irony in this comment when referring to the head of a religion that endorses the concept of original sin?
I wouldn't be so sure about the fallacy of sexual repression not leading to the taking advantage of the easy target of vulnerable and impressionable youth, either. As for your not getting laid, there's a difference between won't and can't. (just a joke, don't take it seriously;)
Slashdot Mirror
Fan of all things Kurzweil, the keyboards (salesman for them also) and the man. Email me for discussion. @gmail.com.
Maybe we should change the name to the United States Department of Deterrence. :P
I'm sure they remembered to build in a Lysine Contingency. It's SOP in these cases, ya know...
Easy solution: just make the trams run downhill... both ways!
I would agree with you if that were the case, but the problem is that it seems like God is in principle unobservable according to most peoples' definitions that's I've seen, whereas currently we don't yet know if parallel universes are unobservable or not. They may be or they may not be, we may learn differently in the future. Another problem is that the multiple universe hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. Until some evidence comes in weighing in on it one way or another, it shall remain that way. If there is ever any evidence, then it may become a theory. Is there a way that you can think of to show that God may be in principle observable?
Still waiting for you to back up those assertions of yours with some specific evidence, buddy.
No, the real answer is that you are still free not to buy the movies, but most people would rather buy them with the crap that goes along with them than do without. Breaking the law through copyright infringement isn't the answer either.
Try hitting Ctrl-;
Your English skills in that scientifically-ignorant rant are the least of your worries...
You don't understand the concept of the tree of life. First of all, please provide a specific definition of the word "kind" as it relates to classification of organisms. If you mean above the species level, this has already been addressed. Second, read "The Ancestor's Tale", that'll help you understand the concept of . Also, Talk.origins provides a complete, comprehensive list to false claims such as yours. Continuing to repeat them as if they were true can only be due to laziness or willful ignorance.
Holy shit, did you not even read the parent you are replying to? Just saying "nah-uh! no it isn't!" isn't good enough. Just because you can't comprehend the idea and scale of hundreds of thousands to millions of years and generations doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Add hundreds of thousands of accumulated changes to your framework and eventually it is incompatible with your original. Just because you can't find a definitive, singular break in the continuum from Creature 1 to Creature 156,384 doesn't mean that if you stick both of them next to each other, they must still be the same thing. What fundamentally prevents all those "micro-evolutions" from resulting in "macro-evolution"? All the tired arguments about "mutations are only destructive" and "mutations don't add 'information' to the genome" only highlight ignorance about it, so try again.
That's because 1) you haven't read it and don't have a clue what it's about, which stems from 2) you're an ignorant idiot. The most of the book is spent explaining how a gene-centric view of evolution makes sense and how it can lead to individual altruism.
Wow, you've totally convinced me with that argument!
Ball sweat! Scrotum licker! That's a huge bitch!
Well wait, did the researchers get the units for free or did they buy them?
Actually....
What do you mean I'm already "subscribed"?
Please, for the sake of humanity, don't ever make another post that has "Roseanna Barr" and "flow" in the same sentence.
If I say I don't like feminists, can we get them banned? That would make about as much sense as the original troll wouldn't it?
Intuition is the brain fuzzily(tm) matching patterns in the background below (or above?) conscious thought. How would you go about consciously practicing something that is (probably?) fundamentally subconscious?
No worries, everything will be cool as long as Houston makes sure not to look into laser with their remaining good eye. Someone should put a warning sticker on that thing or something...
They should have used something stronger like "12345". I hear it really helps protect a lot of people's luggage, so it must be really secure!
Anyone else see the irony in this comment when referring to the head of a religion that endorses the concept of original sin?
I wouldn't be so sure about the fallacy of sexual repression not leading to the taking advantage of the easy target of vulnerable and impressionable youth, either. As for your not getting laid, there's a difference between won't and can't. (just a joke, don't take it seriously ;)