Pedophile Priest Murdered

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes --- but until proof exists that there is no God, then I'm right in my eyes.

I'm afraid I can't share your blind faith (not meant as an insult, BTW).

 

Take it as condescension if you wish to do so. All I'm saying is that you don't believe in God due to a lack of proof --- but you accept another theory with even LESS proof or evidence.

Wait, are you saying there is MORE proof that there is a God? If so, I'd have to disagree with you there.

I understand that. But, my point to you is that the theory that the world was a fluke is even LESS likely. It is exceptionally unfeasible that the world can be this orderly without a being overseeing all of this.

 

As for proof, again, the odds of the world being a fluke, to me, seem miniscule.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

I understand that. But, my point to you is that the theory that the world was a fluke is even LESS likely. It is exceptionally unfeasible that the world can be this orderly without a being overseeing all of this.

 

As for proof, again, the odds of the world being a fluke, to me, seem miniscule.

-=Mike

What do you base that on? How do you see it as being LESS likely? Are you saying in YOUR opinion it's less likely? The Greeks themselves believed the ordered universe came out of chaos.

[Vyce 0]

Religion will never be able to disprove science.

 

However, science will never be able to disprove religion.

 

And that pretty much sums it all up.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Just my opinion, don't think I am trying to promote some kind of new religion.

That's pretty much the Yin and Yang of Buddhism, so you're right.

[Guest MikeSC]

I understand that. But, my point to you is that the theory that the world was a fluke is even LESS likely. It is exceptionally unfeasible that the world can be this orderly without a being overseeing all of this.

 

As for proof, again, the odds of the world being a fluke, to me, seem miniscule.

      -=Mike

What do you base that on? How do you see it as being LESS likely? Are you saying in YOUR opinion it's less likely? The Greeks themselves believed the ordered universe came out of chaos.

I base this on science's total inability to replicate ANYTHING from the creation of the universe.

 

Total inability.

-=Mike

[Guest SideFXs]

I base this on science's total inability to replicate ANYTHING from the creation of the universe.

 

Total inability.

                    -=Mike

Fusion and the hydrogen bomb. No offence, Mike. I like your posts. This is the source of energy for every star in the universe. Of course, the hydrogen bombs we tested in the Pacific, were little popcorn fireworks compared to what our Sun does.

[Guest MikeSC]

I base this on science's total inability to replicate ANYTHING from the creation of the universe.

 

Total inability.

                     -=Mike

Fusion and the hydrogen bomb. No offence, Mike. I like your posts. This is the source of energy for every star in the universe. Of course, the hydrogen bombs we tested in the Pacific, were little popcorn fireworks compared to what our Sun does.

We cannot replicate any of the forces, honestly, that led to the creation of life or the like. We are unable to begin to really understand such things as weather patterns. We can't begin to approach, to ANY degree, the forces that shaped this world or brought life about.

 

And it's highly unlikely we ever will.

 

Think about this: Can something as complex as the iris of an eye simply be the creation of a fluke?

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Mike, I agree with you, and I believe in God. But, here's where you're flawed in that assesment: You absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't random, and you can't prove that it's not replicable.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, I agree with you, and I believe in God. But, here's where you're flawed in that assesment: You absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't random, and you can't prove that it's not replicable.

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

-=Mike

I think it is more irrational to assume that it was the Judeo-Christian God that created everything. If there was a Creator (which I doubt), who's to say He/She/It wouldn't be apathetic toward It's creations? And your "proof" seems very flawed.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Mike, I agree with you, and I believe in God. But, here's where you're flawed in that assesment: You absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't random, and you can't prove that it's not replicable.

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

-=Mike

Science cannot disprove religion/God. In fact, I believe as science advances it will go the other way and help prove it. For example, theories on molecular replacement in the human body will go a long way toward proving the existence of the soul.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Mike, I agree with you, and I believe in God. But, here's where you're flawed in that assesment: You absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't random, and you can't prove that it's not replicable.

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

-=Mike

Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence.

 

You've said that quite a few times, Mike.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, I agree with you, and I believe in God. But, here's where you're flawed in that assesment: You absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't random, and you can't prove that it's not replicable.

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

-=Mike

Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence.

 

You've said that quite a few times, Mike.

Ah, touche.

 

My view is this: It, to me, seems unfathomable that random acts could possibly lead to a world as orderly as ours. It would require millions upon millions of acts to occur in the perfect sequence to make it occur and the sheer odds of it happening are astronomical.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

                -=Mike

I think it is more irrational to assume that it was the Judeo-Christian God that created everything. If there was a Creator (which I doubt), who's to say He/She/It wouldn't be apathetic toward It's creations? And your "proof" seems very flawed.

Fact is, we're BOTH working from faith here.

 

My faith is based on the orderliness and beauty of the world.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Mike, I agree with you, and I believe in God. But, here's where you're flawed in that assesment: You absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't random, and you can't prove that it's not replicable.

I have stated that it is unbelievably unlikely that it was random and, to me, seems borderline irrational to assume so. As for proof --- as of this moment, science has not come close to replicating creation.

-=Mike

Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence.

 

You've said that quite a few times, Mike.

Ah, touche.

 

My view is this: It, to me, seems unfathomable that random acts could possibly lead to a world as orderly as ours. It would require millions upon millions of acts to occur in the perfect sequence to make it occur and the sheer odds of it happening are astronomical.

-=Mike

And I absolutely, completely agree with you. I'm just playing the ol' Devil's advocate here.

 

It's the same reason why I hate arguing about religion; neither side can prove their sides with actual fact, so what's the point in arguing about it? A certain amount of faith is ALWAYS necessary, and therefore, there's no point in arguing.

[Firestarter 0]

Mike, you really need to stick to politics, because when it comes to science you're unbelievably ignorant. The human eye is built backwards, inside out, and upside down. The only explanation for its form IS gradual evolution. It's one of the best arguments for natural selection extant, and if your God designed it like that from scratch, he's not only incompetent but a fucking idiot.

Edited August 27, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Unlikely that we're a fluke? Name another planet that supports life.

 

Given that the entire rest of the INFINITE universe is out there, and we've not seen another life form in it aside from this planet, it's pretty safe to say that this IS a fluke.

 

Where do you get this orderly world from, anyway?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Given that the entire rest of the INFINITE universe is out there, and we've not seen another life form in it aside from this planet, it's pretty safe to say that this IS a fluke.

Not to nitpick overmuch, but I think the latest theory about the universe states that it's finite after all. Still, it's pretty fucking enormous, and we haven't discovered any other intelligent life out there. I think there is something else out there -- the universe is way to big for us to be the whole f'n show -- but our current technology isn't good enough to find it yet.

[dutchse.cx 0]

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog...ogy_faq.html#CC

 

Is the Universe really infinite or just really big?

We have observations that say that the radius of curvature of the Universe is bigger than 70 billion light years. But the observations allow for either a positive or negative curvature, and this range includes the flat Universe with infinite radius of curvature. So we know empirically that the Universe is bigger than several times the observable Universe. Since we can only look at small piece of an object that has a large radius of curvature, it looks flat. The simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about the Universe is that it is really big.

 

Will the Universe expand forever or recollapse?

This depends on the ratio of the density of the Universe to the critical density. If the density is higher than the critical density the Universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch. But current data suggests that the density is less than or equal to the critical density so the Universe will expand forever. See Part 3 of the tutorial for more information.

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/accel2.html

 

But remember, it was space that was created, and there isn't anything into which it expands. The Universe is all there is.

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/hubbl...ble_expand.html

 

Being the space geek I am, I figured I'd toss that out there for anyone interested in universe expansion.

[Guest JMA]

Love that sig and avatar, Dutchman. I'm a big Dynasty Warriors fan myself.

[Guest BobbyWhioux]

We as a society should not have to rely on these means for our "justice."

 

I certainly won't miss Geoghan. BUT, its certainly not okay that this happened.

 

He got out of serving his full sentence, actually. I'm kinda miffed.

 

Turning a blind eye to the "scum of the earth" while they take care of each other is reckless and cheapens our own civilization.

 

"Who cares, they're all animals, let them kill each other off. Serves 'em right."

 

Take that attitude if you will, but remember for quite a long time, that was this country's prevailing attitude towards so-called black on black crime amongst "those coloreds." Just something we ought to keep in mind...

[Ripper 0]

Unlikely that we're a fluke? Name another planet that supports life.

 

Given that the entire rest of the INFINITE universe is out there, and we've not seen another life form in it aside from this planet, it's pretty safe to say that this IS a fluke.

 

Where do you get this orderly world from, anyway?

If they found a Dodge Stratus sitting on mars with a Dell computer in the backseat, would you assume that it just formed due to atmostpheric events or that something put it there.

 

The human body is millions times more complicated than both those items yet it is believed that it just happened.

 

I can see why one would believe in a Creator or not. I just don't think that believeing in one or the other is really reaching or asinine either.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you really need to stick to politics, because when it comes to science you're unbelievably ignorant. The human eye is built backwards, inside out, and upside down. The only explanation for its form IS gradual evolution. It's one of the best arguments for natural selection extant, and if your God designed it like that from scratch, he's not only incompetent but a fucking idiot.

And why in the world would natural selection lead to it, when it seems to go AGAINST natural selection at every step?

-=Mike

...Bizarrely-designed organs don't seem to make natural selection sense.

[Guest MikeSC]

Given that the entire rest of the INFINITE universe is out there, and we've not seen another life form in it aside from this planet, it's pretty safe to say that this IS a fluke.

Not to nitpick overmuch, but I think the latest theory about the universe states that it's finite after all. Still, it's pretty fucking enormous, and we haven't discovered any other intelligent life out there. I think there is something else out there -- the universe is way to big for us to be the whole f'n show -- but our current technology isn't good enough to find it yet.

And, Dr. Tom, how much of the universe do we have a smidgeon of a clue about?

 

What fraction of 1 percent?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

It's the same reason why I hate arguing about religion; neither side can prove their sides with actual fact, so what's the point in arguing about it? A certain amount of faith is ALWAYS necessary, and therefore, there's no point in arguing.

I tend to agree.

 

Here's what I have never liked about the entire religion vs. science argument: both sides act as if it's all or nothing.

 

Either the universe is totally a fluke, or it's totally done by God.

 

It can't be both? Science doesn't disprove God, God doesn't disprove science. Both can coexist HARMONIOUSLY.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Mike, you really need to stick to politics, because when it comes to science you're unbelievably ignorant. The human eye is built backwards, inside out, and upside down. The only explanation for its form IS gradual evolution. It's one of the best arguments for natural selection extant, and if your God designed it like that from scratch, he's not only incompetent but a fucking idiot.

Your condescending act is getting tired.

 

If natural selection is supposed to eliminate flawed characterstics, then why is the human eye built backwards, inside out, and upside down?

 

And how exactly does gradual evolution contradict God?