With all the bible trashing it hasn't really occured to anyone that a single origin for all of mankind from the area where the garden of eden is supposed to be located is now supported by the scientific evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence. Is it religion that must accomodate science, or science converging with religion?
Hehe, there is a difference between these type of shows and X-Files. Science fiction takes some science and twists it as much as possible. It's fun. "Unsolved Mysteries" is a tabloid show that actually investigates phenomena like abductions seriously. It's completely different.
Bruce Cambell is the actor who is famous for the Evil Dead trilogy. He is also involved in Xena, Hercules, Jack of All Trades, etc. He starred in one of the X-File episodes as well.
What does knowledge of modern science or scepticism have to do with enjoying a science fiction t.v. series? Or is that just the stick up your ass talking?
I think he did an episode once where he was a demon trying to have a human baby instead of a demon baby. He was actually pretty good. I think he'd make a great Mulder.
Borland's tools for the Macintosh were pretty cheap as far as I can remember.
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Well the situation is this. I am writing this from my laptop. My laptop is black. You can say whatever you want about my laptop being any other color,say green, and it can even be very funny, but you will simply be wrong about my laptop being green. It's black, simple and to the point.
You can say whatever you want about religion in general or Christianity in particular ( the jab to Christianity is obvious)
Now it's not a matter of me being offended, because I am not a christian. In fact I found it quite funny. But if he meant this to be a statement on Christianity, well then it's a misrepresentation.
Christianity does not teach that God wants you to kiss his ass and in return you will go to heaven, otherwise you will burn in Hell forever. Christianity teaches that love and kindness will triumph over evil and understanding why you are here will answer the question of where you are going. Because it is a path or a road, not an ass kissing.
One more thing I noticed about this argument is that you kind of refuted yourself. Don't use an intelligent agent to refute irreducible complexity, because that is exactly my argument, IOW:
1.an intelligent agent made an irreducibly complex computer chip
...is the same as...
2.an intelligent agent made an irreducibly complex bicoid gene.
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, the 'god' hypothesis doesn't provide any hard data either.
To the contrary I have provided quite a few examples of the kind of data that leads to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. No response yet.
It's a handwaving argument, ultimately rooted in proof by incredulity. You cannot present any verifiable evidence for a god, particularly that as described in the christian bible.
Christianity and the bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. Saying that the Jupiter's distance is one of many many tightly fine-tuned parameter for life is a far cry from "handwaving".
Argument from Intelligent Design mostly shows that the person putting forth the argument has reached a point where they can no longer believe that mechanical answers are sufficient, and they are unwilling to accept 'I don't know' as a temporary answer.
I havn't said "I don't know" yet, so I am not sure where you are getting this from. Intelligent Design theorists base their conclusions on what we do know. Unlike your arguments where you invoke an imaginary metaverse with no back up whatsoever.
All proposals for a god wind up either being loaded with self-contradictions or so weak that it can be safely ignored.
Noone has been able to show me how the ID argument is "loaded with self-contradictions" or "so weak that it can be safely ignored". People who ignore it do so out of personal bias rather then logical argument or scientific inquiry.
One example: the proposal earlier in this thread that god is completely and utterly outside the universe. In that case, as I pointed out earlier, this by definition is a completely non-interventionist god, which cannot interact with anything inside our universe.
Again this makes no sense. A bowling ball causing a dent on a pillow is an example of a cause being outside it's effect. It's a basic definition.
Prayers are abosolutely useless, and miracles are impossible by the very definition of your god. You've conveniently ignored that aspect of the argument.
Your premise is flawed, as I already pointed out. I don't know how you think I ignored it.
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Thanks , where's my lollipop?
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank!
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
With all the bible trashing it hasn't really occured to anyone that a single origin for all of mankind from the area where the garden of eden is supposed to be located is now supported by the scientific evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence. Is it religion that must accomodate science, or science converging with religion?
Yes I think so.
Haha you guys crack me up.
Great points. I hope they use him he's cool as hell.
Tyler Durden is free in all the ways you are not.
The only thing I liked about this post was your .sig
Hehe, there is a difference between these type of shows and X-Files. Science fiction takes some science and twists it as much as possible. It's fun. "Unsolved Mysteries" is a tabloid show that actually investigates phenomena like abductions seriously. It's completely different.
Yeah I remember that episode. He was completely serious in that episode. This is probably the reason why they won't use him.
Bruce Cambell is the actor who is famous for the Evil Dead trilogy. He is also involved in Xena, Hercules, Jack of All Trades, etc. He starred in one of the X-File episodes as well.
What does knowledge of modern science or scepticism have to do with enjoying a science fiction t.v. series? Or is that just the stick up your ass talking?
I think he did an episode once where he was a demon trying to have a human baby instead of a demon baby. He was actually pretty good. I think he'd make a great Mulder.
Can you give some examples? You are going to be moderated down unless you say specifically
what the problem is.
I want to feed the troll
Please reply carefully please feed the troll
Where can I get some?
I love it when you +2
Bitching is better if you are a karma whore.
Grey Hulk will talk you to death.
I actually fell asleep reading this post it was so damn boring.
Borland's tools for the Macintosh were pretty cheap as far as I can remember.
Well the situation is this. I am writing this from my laptop. My laptop is black. You can say whatever you want about my laptop being any other color,say green, and it can even be very funny, but you will simply be wrong about my laptop being green. It's black, simple and to the point.
You can say whatever you want about religion in general or Christianity in particular ( the jab to Christianity is obvious)
Now it's not a matter of me being offended, because I am not a christian. In fact I found it quite funny. But if he meant this to be a statement on Christianity, well then it's a misrepresentation.
Christianity does not teach that God wants you to kiss his ass and in return you will go to heaven, otherwise you will burn in Hell forever. Christianity teaches that love and kindness will triumph over evil and understanding why you are here will answer the question of where you are going. Because it is a path or a road, not an ass kissing.
One more thing I noticed about this argument is that you kind of refuted yourself. Don't use an intelligent agent to refute irreducible complexity, because that is exactly my argument, IOW:
1.an intelligent agent made an irreducibly complex computer chip
...is the same as...
2.an intelligent agent made an irreducibly complex bicoid gene.
Unfortunately, the 'god' hypothesis doesn't provide any hard data either.
To the contrary I have provided quite a few examples of the kind of data that leads to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. No response yet.
It's a handwaving argument, ultimately rooted in proof by incredulity. You cannot present any verifiable evidence for a god, particularly that as described in the christian bible.
Christianity and the bible has absolutely nothing to do with this. Saying that the Jupiter's distance is one of many many tightly fine-tuned parameter for life is a far cry from "handwaving".
Argument from Intelligent Design mostly shows that the person putting forth the argument has reached a point where they can no longer believe that mechanical answers are sufficient, and they are unwilling to accept 'I don't know' as a temporary answer.
I havn't said "I don't know" yet, so I am not sure where you are getting this from. Intelligent Design theorists base their conclusions on what we do know. Unlike your arguments where you invoke an imaginary metaverse with no back up whatsoever.
All proposals for a god wind up either being loaded with self-contradictions or so weak that it can be safely ignored.
Noone has been able to show me how the ID argument is "loaded with self-contradictions" or "so weak that it can be safely ignored". People who ignore it do so out of personal bias rather then logical argument or scientific inquiry.
One example: the proposal earlier in this thread that god is completely and utterly outside the universe. In that case, as I pointed out earlier, this by definition is a completely non-interventionist god, which cannot interact with anything inside our universe.
Again this makes no sense. A bowling ball causing a dent on a pillow is an example of a cause being outside it's effect. It's a basic definition.
Prayers are abosolutely useless, and miracles are impossible by the very definition of your god. You've conveniently ignored that aspect of the argument.
Your premise is flawed, as I already pointed out. I don't know how you think I ignored it.
Thanks , where's my lollipop?
My point is you have none.