[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Yeah, fair enough. The problem is, my observations are inherently limited, due to the medium through which we communicate. Thus, it's a given that any comment I make is based solely upon observations from MacNN.

My observations may be limited overall, but as a representation of somebody's online persona, they're fairly accurate... and I'd argue that if, as you say, a person is constantly misguided or incorrect, they are probably stupid (using the word loosely).

I understand; sampling is a process with some probabilistic properties as well though, right?

[Railroader]

OK, I'm back, what did I miss?

HOLY COW! Did Cipher blow a gasket or what?!?

I find a flaw in his example and he calls me an idiot and then defends calling me an idiot because I pointed out a flaw with his "example". You need to get out of the house more. The funny thing is that if you had the numbers million (one planet) and billion (number of planets) swapped around to read billion (one planet) and million (number of planets) I wouldn't have even entered the thread. But the defends calling me an idiot because he probably thinks he won't be much of a man if he doesn't. And he'd hate to ever have to admit to a mistake on here.

Back on topic: Has anyone read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson? I have to be honest and admit I haven't actually read it, I bought a copy on Audible.com and listened to it. It the book he covers just a few theories of the earth's creation and the people behind the theories. It's hilarious British humor and very subtle humor, but it is hilarious if you like that kind of thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

Three words?

Typical Zimph argument, though. Pick something to latch onto and just run with it like a Christian with a bible. No matter how ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with a Christian or Bible. And me telling you that you calling people idiots is pretentiously condescending isn't ridiculous at all.

That is EXACTLY what it is.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Back on topic: Has anyone read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson? I have to be honest and admit I haven't actually read it, I bought a copy on Audible.com and listened to it. It the book he covers just a few theories of the earth's creation and the people behind the theories. It's hilarious British humor and very subtle humor, but it is hilarious if you like that kind of thing.

The book has good press about it, so I read. Missing parts and some rounded corners at places but was a recommended read from either Scientific American of American Scientists, with the caution that it is an introductory reading to encourage further motivation in science litterature.
IIRC.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Railroader

OK, I'm back, what did I miss?

HOLY COW! Did Cipher blow a gasket or what?!?
.

Naw. Typical old school Cipher.

He is still in his late teens early 20s. And knows EVERYTHING. Just ask him.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

it is an introductory reading to encourage further motivation in science litterature.
IIRC.

Exactly. But with humor.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Railroader

OK, I'm back, what did I miss?

HOLY COW! Did Cipher blow a gasket or what?!?

I find a flaw in his example and he calls me an idiot and then defends calling me an idiot because I pointed out a flaw with his "example". You need to get out of the house more. The funny thing is that if you had the numbers million (one planet) and billion (number of planets) swapped around to read billion (one planet) and million (number of planets) I wouldn't have even entered the thread. But the defends calling me an idiot because he probably thinks he won't be much of a man if he doesn't. And he'd hate to ever have to admit to a mistake on here.

Back on topic: Has anyone read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson? I have to be honest and admit I haven't actually read it, I bought a copy on Audible.com and listened to it. It the book he covers just a few theories of the earth's creation and the people behind the theories. It's hilarious British humor and very subtle humor, but it is hilarious if you like that kind of thing.

My example was fine. You simply don't understand the concept of an example.

Originally Posted by Kevin

It has nothing to do with a Christian or Bible. And me telling you that you calling people idiots is pretentiously condescending isn't ridiculous at all.

That is EXACTLY what it is.

Nope, it's not ridiculous. It's perfectly justified and accurate.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Naw. Typical old school Cipher.

He is still in his late teens early 20s. And knows EVERYTHING. Just ask him.

Aww, being condescending now are we? Well, you *must* be wiser because you're older.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

My example was fine. You simply don't understand the concept of an example.

Other than it was completely backwards... and then you limited the number of planets of an infinite universe to only a billion... yeah, I guess your example was fine. /SARCASM]*














* added just incase you thought Iw as agreeing with you.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Other than it was completely backwards... and then you limited the number of planets of an infinite universe to only a billion... yeah, I guess your example was fine. /SARCASM]*

It was an EXAMPLE. How thick are you?

And if you wanna be like that, fine. Who are you to say that the number of planets should have been higher than the odds of life forming? Do you know something we don't?

Who says the universe is infinite? Why don't you present to me a more fitting example, seeing as mine was so flawed that you couldn't comprehend its point?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Salty

Yes, this is the old a thousand monkeys on a thousand type writers would eventually compile the complex works or Shakespeare.

Which makes sense... however in actual fact, though, when they tried this recently with computers... the monkeys just defecated on the keyboards.
Fact is we've never actually SEEN life spontaneously generate. We just assume because we're here it's been done.

I actually thought about bringing this bollocks up with your last probability comment. Guess I won't have to. And no, the old "thousand monkeys" doesn't exist. It's an "infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters." By the very definition of infinity, eventually Shakespeare would be typed. The fact that a university bothered with a finite number of monkeys bothers me—what a waste of money and resources.

And for the record, my reasons for arguing against evolutionist theory is not because I'm a Christian. Dun dun dun, I know I know I know, what the heck am I talking about, I thought only religious nut jobs didn't believe in evolution. No my reason for not believing it and arguing against it is that it simply doesn't makes sense. Ultimately if it were ever proven all that would mean is that one of many ways to read the book of Genesis was flawed. Though even that is dubious to say since there are ways of casting doubt on just about anything.
So for those of you who think I have something personal invested in it you're wrong. I just find the pushing of a theory that in my opinion doesn't have enough evidence to back it up is insulting to the truth.

Um...you're delusional. How, pray tell, does it not make sense?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Time isn't elastic - it's static. The illusion of moving through time is just that - an illusion. The length of time we've been in our universe is precisely now... ...and no longer.

We think so much alike, sometimes it frightens me.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

No, it was totally called for. He's an idiot. I simply stated the fact.

It's the namecalling itself, it has no place in adult conversation, it's childish, and purposely inflammatory. As I said before, grow up... or are you next going to start up a chorus of "I know you are, but what am I"?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, correct secure people have no need to act like that.

-t

[budster101]

Excuse my noobyness here but isn't time the slave to space? I mean if you can bend space then time is relative and therefore not exactly static. (In appearances only). If one folded space then the two points touching could then realistically span a million light years or more if otherwise left alone.. making "time travel" possible.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

It's the namecalling itself, it has no place in adult conversation, it's childish, and purposely inflammatory. As I said before, grow up... or are you next going to start up a chorus of "I know you are, but what am I"?

I understand your position, but it's effective use of language. If somebody is indeed an idiot, I'll call them such. Why waste time with pleasantries?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

We think so much alike, sometimes it frightens me.

We must have read the same books.

[ebuddy]

Us humans are a curious being no? This thread was a good read.

[ebuddy]

So... what have we concluded then? Is life as we know it an accident?

'I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine'. -Darwin

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."  
(Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."
(Dr. Paul LeMoine)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it."
(H.S. Lipson)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."
(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet.  It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact.  This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."
(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)

"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record.  Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination."
(Dr. David Pilbeam)

"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.  This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."
(Dr. G. A. Kerkut)

"Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a frantic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages.  If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
(Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel)

"The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us.  If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."
(Stephen Hawking)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Doofy

We must have read the same books.

Very likely.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

So... what have we concluded then? Is life as we know it an accident?

"Accident" is most certainly the wrong word (there are no "accidents" in probability).

Winning the lottery is not an "accident." It is likely that someone will win Powerball given the number of tickets sold.

Similarly, given the sheer number of events, life is likely.

Whether one wishes to believe a "guiding hand" is what put the universe (and thus these probabilities) into motion is completely unrelated.

Nevertheless, yes, some physicists believe that a higher being is responsible for the big bang that led to dispersion of energy and hydrogen gas into a space ruled by gravity, whence came the stars and planets, and nuclear fusion leading to more complex elements, and so on up to the evolution of life on this planet.

There really is no problem rectifying all of this with belief in a "God" (Christian or otherwise). It only is a problem for those who take the ancient writings of their religion to be literal.

[GranolaBoy]

One other thing about statistics: Something that has a 1 in 1 billion chance of happening does NOT necessarily happen even if you make 1 billion attempts. I continually hear (IRL and here) that "Well, it was EVENTUALLY going to happen based on the odds." Not quite true.

You can flip a coin several times in a row and not get a different result. So with a 50% chance, you don't necessarily get 1 head and 1 tail with two flips of the coin. It might take 3, or 4, or more chances to get a different result. Just like turning over cards in a deck -- you might draw 4 black cards in a row. It happens all the time.

Just wanted to address this one logical fallacy before the conversation continued. If something has an (estimated) chance of occurring 1 in 1 billion tries, that doesn't mean it will happen. It means for each instance it will almost certainly NOT happen.

[saddino]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

One other thing about statistics: Something that has a 1 in 1 billion chance of happening does NOT necessarily happen even if you make 1 billion attempts. I continually hear (IRL and here) that "Well, it was EVENTUALLY going to happen based on the odds." Not quite true.

You can flip a coin several times in a row and not get a different result. So with a 50% chance, you don't necessarily get 1 head and 1 tail with two flips of the coin. It might take 3, or 4, or more chances to get a different result. Just like turning over cards in a deck -- you might draw 4 black cards in a row. It happens all the time.

Just wanted to address this one logical fallacy before the conversation continued.

Nobody is making this "logical fallacy." As many have pointed out, yes, the individual probability remains exactly the same. But the probability over all events of at least once event occuring goes up with the number of events. This is basic statisitics.

Flipping a head is a 50% chance. Flip again and you have a 50% chance.

But.

The chances of two people flipping a coin, and at least one flipping heads is 75%. And as you add more people, the odds of at least one flipping heads go up.

Therefore, the odds of life occurring in one place is extremely small. But the odds of life occurring some place given trillions of places, is not surprising.

If something has an (estimated) chance of occurring 1 in 1 billion tries, that doesn't mean it will happen. It means for each instance it will almost certainly NOT happen.

Agreed. But the likelyhood of it happening at least once will go up the more tries you make. After a trillion times, 1 in 1 billion is likely to occur at some point (in fact, very likely).

[chris v]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

You can flip a coin several times in a row and not get a different result. So with a 50% chance, you don't necessarily get 1 head and 1 tail with two flips of the coin. It might take 3, or 4, or more chances to get a different result. Just like turning over cards in a deck -- you might draw 4 black cards in a row. It happens all the time.

Off topic a bit-- I heard a father once say of his pregnant wife "Well. we've had three girls in a row, so this one's GOTTA be a boy."

[saddino]

Originally Posted by chris v

Off topic a bit-- I heard a father once say of his pregnant wife "Well. we've had three girls in a row, so this one's GOTTA be a boy."

Yes, that's a classic example of confusing an individual event with a set of events. Statistics certainly aren't intuitive. The odds of a family with four children having four girls is 1 in 5. But, every time a child was born in that family, the odds were 1 in 2 of having a girl.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Salty

I just find the pushing of a theory that in my opinion doesn't have enough evidence to back it up is insulting to the truth.

Free your mind from stupid biases! Here is a free book to read:



http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074363/html/20.html

[GranolaBoy]

Yes, but the 1-in-1-billion was just for purposes of clarifying my point. The odds of life coming from dust by itself is much lower than that. Let's try a practical application of the odds. According to a reputable mathematician (No, I don't remember the name) the odds of a human being arising randomly from cosmic dust are close the following scenario:

A tornado sweeps through a junkyard full of plane parts. By the time it is finished, the tornado assembles a fully functional plane.

You can quote odds and statistics all you want. This is simply not going to happen. But then you have to throw in the time factor. What are the odds of that race developing despite all the calamities that ravage its planet before its sun explodes? I mean, we're not just talking about evolution, we're talking about evolution-no-matter-what. People will talk about petrie dishes and chemical reactions and crap in a laboratory environment, and postulate life can evolve from non-life despite the odds.

People throw around Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and imagine that it refers to the existence of God. But it refers to any extremely unlikely claim. In the end, there are more people claiming to have witnessed spiritual beings than those who have claimed to witness the origins of our species from space muck. That's pure empiricism.

I'm not saying the space dust evolution thing didn't happen. I think it happened because it was meant to happen that way and that no odds were actually involved at all. But I'm saying the certainty that people express when tossing around statistics is misplaced. If you're going to gamble on the matter at all, you should at least acknowledge the house is highly favored to win, here. It is not "highly likely" by any measure. I suspect people are often taking comfort in their existence as evidence, not fully accepting that this is an argument based on circular logic.

[RAILhead]

it seems...

[Chuckit]

[chris v]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

A tornado sweeps through a junkyard full of plane parts. By the time it is finished, the tornado assembles a fully functional plane.

That's the way it seems, mathematically, if you don't consider the ways in which molecules tend to interact. The odds of having a planet on which conditions are exactly right are small (I don't pretend to know myself-- all my posts in this thread have been out of curiosity over that) but once you've got the primordial soup, the tendency of the molecules to interact in such a way as to produce at least the basic building blocks-- amino acids, proteins etc. is pretty strong.

At least from what I've read on the subject, and I'm no expert.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by chris v

That's the way it seems, mathematically, if you don't consider the ways in which molecules tend to interact. The odds of having a planet on which conditions are exactly right are small (I don't pretend to know myself-- all my posts in this thread have been out of curiosity over that) but once you've got the primordial soup, the tendency of the molecules to interact in such a way as to produce at least the basic building blocks-- amino acids, proteins etc. is pretty strong.

At least from what I've read on the subject, and I'm no expert.

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Although, given speculation that the conditions in this experiment may actually not represent the way early Earth was, and given the evidence that a VARIETY of different conditions can produce those basic blocks, it appears that the odds aren't as low as they could be. It doesn't take "exactly right" conditions; it takes one of many certain kinds of conditions.

The amino acids that formed could very likely have evolved into proteinoids.

Or, perhaps, RNA or PNA evolved from those same blocks.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

People will talk about petrie dishes and chemical reactions and crap in a laboratory environment, and postulate life can evolve from non-life despite the odds.

Petri! You genius!!!

[SimpleLife]

Just in case no one saw it...

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

A few definitions for starters:

accident:anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause

probability:A branch of mathematics that measures the likelihood that an event will occur. Probabilities are expressed as numbers between 0 and 1. The probability of an impossible event is 0, while an event that is certain to occur has a probability of 1.

chance:Random variation. Difference between the outcomes from a sample of the population and the true value obtained from looking at the outcomes from the entire population. Statistical methods are used to estimate the probability that chance alone accounts for the differences in outcomes.

coincidence:The chance concurrence of two events having a peculiar correspondence between them.

Let us say life is an "accident". Understanding that accidents happenings that occur "without apparent cause", life may well haver come out of nothing, or from a divine intention, or from more complex principles. Therefore, if life is an accident, its causes appear unexplicable, but does not mean they are not. The value of a divine intervention is still good, although conservatism in the process of knowledge is better; simpler explanations better fit the bill generally.

That life appeared on Earth may be an accident, but what of other places? Truth is we do not know if it happened elsewhere. However, all things being equal, if there is only one life invested planet in our galaxy, life as we know it, and that this galaxy has 100 billion suns, and that 20 % of these are actually systems similar to ours, the odds are good that another planet like ours exists in a similar galaxy. IIRC, it is estimated that the number of galaxies in the known universe is beyond 100 billion. So 100 billion of galaxies times 100 billion suns = a pretty big number of which you need to take 20%.

Now, let's push it further; we need to ask ourselves the odds of life appearing at any time during the "lifetime" of the universe. Remember, we use the criteria of life as we know it. The universe is about 13 billion years old according to last estimates. Earth is about 5 billion years old. The universe could, either being closed or open, last at least another 20 billion years. So with a minimum of 35 billion years lifetime, life appearing at least once in 5 billion years, it is possible to estimate that it may have happened elsewhere before, and may happen again a couple of time in the near future. The reason is that the universe is not static; it is constantly evolving, in transformation. So our area is developped enough to permit the eclosion of life, and other areas were like so before elsewhere, and some other areas are just waiting...

Let us consider as well the idea that there could be other forms of life. We know that emergence principles makes it extremely likely that matter can organize itself given the right conditions. If it does so, what keeps us from hypothesizing that not only our life form on Earth exists, but also, other forms of life, some that may for ever be beyond our understanding. Some may be far advanced, some may stay extremely elusive because of their possibly very short existence.

Life could be an accident, however, odds are that because of the apparent universality of physical, chemical and mechanical processes occuring in the universe, the set of parameters necessary for life to happen elsewhere, life as we know it, makes it likely that we will find a constantly improving way to explain its apparition. Remember that human life on Earth, in terms of duration, is nothing compared to the life span of the universe.

The odds are good for life in the universe. The odds for us to discover life outside of our solar system, however, are extremely small, as the energy required to travel amongst the stars makes it less likely we will ever be able to prove the existence of others than for life appearing elsewhere...

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

In the end, there are more people claiming to have witnessed spiritual beings than those who have claimed to witness the origins of our species from space muck. That's pure empiricism.

[GranolaBoy]

Originally Posted by FulcrumPilot

Petri! You genius!!!

Yes, I am. Thanks for noticing.

I'm sure you've never mistyped anything, and I'm so very sorry I've offended yet another grammar aficionado. I will watch your every post as an example of fine literary craftsmanship.

[Salty]

Don't worry Cipher... some day someone will care what you have to say... and someday someone might even possibly care what you think of them... but not today... no today we just think you need to go out for a very long walk. Well I can't speak for the rest of the forum. I think you need to go for a very long walk. It's amazing what you can realize on a long walk. Like, that you need to take an anger management class. Or that you're screwed cause you left a roast in the oven and your house has probably burnt down. Or how you're going to try and convince the police it was arson...

[Mastrap]

Personally speaking I take Cyphers posts over yours all day, any day.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Personally speaking I take Cyphers posts over yours all day, any day.

Regardless of that... I still don't think he finds you attractive... you'd best try the pink dress...

(Frick I need sleep, even my light hearted witty banter is getting a bit weird...)

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Salty

(Frick I need sleep, even my light hearted witty banter is getting a bit weird...)

May I suggest a long walk?



BTW, you are full of it!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by GranolaBoy

Yes, but the 1-in-1-billion was just for purposes of clarifying my point. The odds of life coming from dust by itself is much lower than that. Let's try a practical application of the odds. According to a reputable mathematician (No, I don't remember the name) the odds of a human being arising randomly from cosmic dust are close the following scenario:

A tornado sweeps through a junkyard full of plane parts. By the time it is finished, the tornado assembles a fully functional plane.

There are a couple of problems with this statement.

1. Being a mathematician doesn't mean you know jack about biology or molecular bonding. As it happens, many materials join together more readily and are more immediately functional than pieces of scrap metal.

2. This is a version of the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. (The name comes from a marksman who shoots at a blank surface and then draws a bullseye around the bullet hole.) Yes, the odds of human beings evolving randomly may be remote. If a roll a set of 16-sided dice 500 times, the exact combination of rolls I achieved would be very improbable. Should we say that because this result is unlikely, divine intervention caused it? No. Because, while this combination is improbable, the only reason we assign special meaning to this particular combination is because it's the one we happened to get.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Personally speaking I take Cyphers posts over yours all day, any day.

Ditto.

[RAILhead]

I'm takin' over. This thread is now about hot, female, Asian models:

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cipher13

I understand your position, but it's effective use of language. If somebody is indeed an idiot, I'll call them such. Why waste time with pleasantries?

Obviously Cipher it's NOT effective.

Unless you mean effective at getting people to make fun of you for it.

Then yes, it's effective.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

'I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine'. -Darwin

OMG! I can't believe that I am actually be held accountable for my actions!

DAMNABLE! Even though I had EVERY chance in the world to set things right, just like EVERYONE ELSE. HOW DARE SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPEN!!?

I think Darwin was in for a surprise.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I'm takin' over. This thread is now about hot, female, Asian models:

Snip Asian chick with a Coke

Ouch! That one burnt my retinas.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by FulcrumPilot

Free your mind from stupid biases! Here is a free book to read:

Ah maybe you could put one in every hotel room.

Spread the word brother Fulcrum.



Tell you what fulcrum, I will free my mind with stupid biases as soon as you free yours.

[Chuckit]

"Set things right"? You're talking about simply not finding a doctrine with no evidence believable. If I tell you the moon is blue, and you don't believe me, would I be justified in shooting you? I mean, you had every chance, just like everyone else, to answer that the moon is blue.

The doctrine that perfectly alright people will be punished for no good reason is damnable. Even many Christians think this is slander against God.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

"Set things right"? You're talking about simply not finding a doctrine with no evidence believable.

Well its a good thing it's all about Faith... Evidence is not required.

If I tell you the moon is blue, and you don't believe me, would I be justified in shooting you? I mean, you had every chance, just like everyone else, to answer that the moon is blue.

Ah but we CAN see the moon. And the MOON is NOT blue all the time.

The doctrine that perfectly alright people will be punished for no good reason is damnable.

No good reason? Subjectable. Again no one has an advantage. Everyone has the same chance.

Even many Christians think this is slander against God.

Well considering God said it himself. They need to argue with him.

Maybe they can sue God for slandering himself.

[Fred_Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well considering God said it himself. They need to argue with him.

Spoken like a fundamentalist! LOL!

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Ditto.

Tritto

[SimpleLife]

So far, I agree that life is an accident, and intelligence, from reading this thread, was forgotten in the process.

We are impossible...