Autonomous
-
Posts
157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Autonomous
-
-
Huh ?? I'm saying the Pope was a former Nazi youth member.
It isn't like you meant to imply anything by it. You just made a random observation, right?
-
Nature ?? Is that Mother Nature or Father Nature ?? Did they ever have children ?? If they did, maybe the kids did the snowflake thing.
Translation from Idiotese-"I cannot respond in an intelligent manner, so I'll post random nonsense."
-
While there's no denying evolution and natural selection, there is NO "natural selection" explanation for the uniqueness of fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.
Natural selection deals with a creatures ability to adapt to and survive its environment, the features that promote survivability are kept. There would have been no "survivability factor" associated with fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc.
A "blind" natural selection process could not have "invented" fingerprints, etc., there would have been no need for this uniqueness in the survivability needs of creatures.
To suggest that there is no intelligent design associated with the evolutionary process, you have to be a stone-cold Darwiniac. Are you listening, Strife ?
I was really hoping you'd explain why uniqueness somehow disproves evolution, but oh well. Guess I'll just destroy yet another of your theories.
Of course evolution doesn't explain the uniqueness of fingerprints. It has nothing to do with it. As others have said, it is because of sexual reproduction. Since you don't understand that, I'll explain further.
In sexual reproduction, both parents provide genetic material for the offspring. Therefore, the offspring is identical to neither.
Of course, this isn't a simple cut-and-paste job. My parents are both dark haired. Therefore, you would guess any children they produced would be dark haired as well. You would be correct for the first two, but my youngest brother is blond. This is because my mother carries genes from her father, who was blond and light-skinned. Because of the nature of genetics (I bet I'll have to explain this later) this gene skipped her to surface in her offspring.
Because no one else shares my parents' unique genetic histories, no one else would produce children with identical fingerprints, irises, etc. They are unique precisely because of the randomness inherent in sexual reproduction, yet you are trying to use this uniqueness to prove a lack of randomness. This is why we laugh at you.
Now I see that with this...
Natural selection deals with a creatures ability to adapt to and survive its environment, the features that promote survivability are kept. There would have been no "survivability factor" associated with fingerprints, irises, DNA, etc...you seem to think that evolution has a way of dumping traits with no survival value. It doesn't, which is why we carry around junk DNA. In fact, if evolution had dumped useless traits that might be an indicator of an intelligent designer.
-
A pile of rocks is a great analogy though, Willy. Good job.
Yes it is. Glad you could see it. It points out that you are simply making an unsupported assertion. You're in effect saying "Nature cannot create billions of unique individuals." Why not? Have you ever made rock candy? It forms through the crystallization process. By your logic every piece of rock candy made in the same way should be identical. But they aren't. No two snowflakes are alike, etc., etc. This doesn't show that God is behind each one, it shows that nature is not a xerox machine. Above the molecular level, can you give a single example of exact replication in nature? Even eukaryotes show some variation.
-
The Pope has a Ph.D. ?? Do you also know that as a teenager he belonged to the Hitler Youth, a young Nazi organization ??
So you're saying that Jesus only washes away some sins?
-
Another "2smart4u" ?? I'm flattered.
So do you disagree with the actual post?
-
You're exaggerating because you're in denial that the leading Christian scholar is also an evolutionist.
The Pope said that only those Churches directly founded by Jesus' Apostles are true churches (that would man Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and perhaps Coptic Christian). Others he said are also important:
"These separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."
There are many who disagree with the Pope. But to joke about drinking wine when Benedict has a Ph.D. in theology from a prominent German University and was a professor for many years is really a cheap shot.
How many Churches actually say that all religious faiths are equal? I doubt that even the Dalai Lama would go along with that.
The Pope has a Ph.D. ?? Do you also know that as a teenager he belonged to the Hitler Youth, a young Nazi organization ??
Do you know that only one question mark is needed when asking a question?
-
"God is incredibly unlikely" ?? Beyond the "mother nature, serendipity and happenstance" explanation the Darwiniacs have for our world and the universe, how do the Darwiniacs explain away the uniqueness of DNA, irises, fingerprints, voices, physical appearances, etc. ?? Certainly, if evolution was the only reason for our being, I think we'd be more similiar in our makeup. The uniqueness of our individual bodies ( DNA, irises, fingerprints, voices, physical appearances) points to Intelligent Design.
Precisely why do you think that evolution would produce identical clones?
-
And anyone too stupid not to know it will burn with them when they die !!
Pascal gets it, why don't you ?
One more thing-my old pastor used to say that anyone using their faith to denigrate others is obviously more concerned with being right than righteous.
-
And anyone too stupid not to know it will burn with them when they die !!
Pascal gets it, why don't you ?
This is impressively trollish even by the high standards you've set for yourself. Only one exclamation point is needed, however.
From Pensees:God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist.No it isn't. That is a whopper of an assumption.
It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist.Not really. Anything starts with a 50/50 chance of existing if we are being incredibly generous. Factual evidence would increase the likelihood, yet each logically improbable characteristic would decrease it.
Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.Two assumptions here. First off, is faith a simple choice? There was a time in my life when I desperately wanted to believe. I wasn't capable of it. Second, why should we assume that nothing is lost by choosing a life of faith? Shouldn't some evidence be presented to show this?
Finally, Pascal's Wager says nothing on which God is the correct one. What if following the wrong God is worse than not believing at all? If Allah exists but your God doesn't, you're still screwed. From what I understand of Islam, you'd be more screwed than I would.
We discussed this not too long ago. Is your advanced age causing senility already?
-
Could I support my point with a single fact?
What if I put two together?
No recollection of the Carter years, eh?
Have you ever read about the Great Depression? Know anything about inflation cycles? About how human expectations play a huge role in the economy?
I don't recall the Carter years-I was born in 1976. I should have said 'usually.'
The national debt is quite manageable. It's best measured as a percentage of GDP. Of course, government policies that shrink the GDP (such as tax increases that hamper business investment) could grow that percentage in no time at all, especially if combined with new government expenses.The GOP is adopting that as part of its platform, as I understand it (though skepticism regarding their ability to pull it off is justified).
The GOP also pushed for a balanced budget amendment in the 1990s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budg..._budget_surplus
I'm not much of an economist. If it doesn't directly impact my business there is a good chance I don't know about it. My wife, however, has a degree in accounting. We (as a nation) pay a LOT on just the interest on the debt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that isn't a good thing. The fact that so much of our debt is owned by foreign investors is not a pleasing thought to me.
I know the GOP used to want to balance the budget. I predict they'll take over again in 2008, and I'll give them yet another chance to do it. Like usual, I'd be very surprised if the government does anything before it becomes an emergency.
-
That was me. Didn't realize that my wife had cleared the cookies.
-
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
The pope is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy, where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.
“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said in a closed door meeting with 400 priests on Tuesday. A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued on Wednesday.
“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.
Our Earth is talking to us
World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.
The pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”
“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.
Last April, the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that willfully damaging the environment is sinful.
Unlike our wingnut members, I'll source my story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
I gotta say, I respect the man for saying this. He's going to offend a lot of the hardliners.
-
See the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the anthropic principle, for starters.
The Kalam Cosmological argument simply argues that the universe must have a cause. Implying said cause to be God is departing from the argument.
Barrow's teleological application of the Strong anthropic principle is rejected by Brandon Carter, who is one of the first to formulate the principle. Nick Bostrom states quite eloquently that the anthropic principle simply warns against anthropic bias.
Even if we accept that these arguments prove God's existence, neither of these prove that God exists in the particular permutation that you believe in. If the Muslims, Hindus, or pagans are right, the inalienable rights God gives to man change somewhat.
Ignore what Gavin said about the anthropic principle. He apparently accepted Richard Dawkins' crackpot interpretation.No, you read it correctly. It's not, strictly speaking (and with understatement), the most deductively appealing of arguments.
But it really would S**K if there were really no such thing as right or wrong. Could you live that way? I know some people can. I suspect they're a tiny minority.
I do not believe in dualism. Now while there are complex arguments put forth in support of a soul separate from the body, the most common one I hear is that it would be horrible if that were the case. Which in no way proves the soul to exist.
Taoism and Buddhism both accept the existence of gods, but the deities are not really central to the core tentets of either religion. If their conceptions of morality are not based on god-given rights, are their moralities now insufficient?
The idea that morality must be based on god-given rights has a fairly extensive set of problems. What if there is no god? How do you know that you have the correct set of rights?
-
Of course. Clinton managed the economy fairly well (centrist Democrat, except for Hillarycare), and took advantage of the war dividend while cooperating with the welfare reform bill passed by the Republican congress (Democrats hated that). Clinton left to Bush an economy on the downturn (overvalued stock market the biggest cause) along with a depleted military (used tons of bombs in Bosnia, didn't buy many bombs).
Clinton's economy faced neither of the two major challenges that Bush has dealt with, namely the 9-11 attacks (check the Dow for that time frame) and the radically increased demand in China and India for fossil fuels (which drives up the market price worldwide).
So, what point did you wish to make? That Bush hasn't managed the economy well because the Dow did better during the Clinton years?
Do you think that's a logical inference?
No, that you can't produce one single fact and expect it to prove your point. The economy is chugging along as it always does-for now. The national debt is likely to hurt that in the long run-but both parties are to blame for that. Democrats haven't exactly been pushing for a balanced budget either.
-
"The planning for and the management of the occupation has been
incompetent" ?? This analysis coming from a former E-3 or E-4 ?? I don't
think that was in your job discription.
I thought I wasn't in at all according to you?
-
I think that morality has a philosophical basis because of evidence suggesting the existence of a god
I know I'm going to regret this, but what evidence?
(other than the appearance of morality), and because the worldview that would result if there were no philosophical basis for morality is repugnant. I think one good test for a worldview is whether you can live with it.I'm actually fairly sure that the argument you are making isn'twhat it seems to be. You seem to be saying "it would really S**K if x didn't exist," which of course is not an argument for x actually existing at all. X being a philosophical basis for morality of course. What are you actually saying here?
-
Dow in record territory, and Iraq poised to achieve a constitutional republic if not for the defeatism of Democrats ... did I miss anything?
If we're using the Dow as a measurement for successful economic policy a simple graph...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_miles...ustrial_Average
...would seem to show enormous growth during the Clinton administration and modest growth (except for 9/11 of course) since.
-
Harry Reid, Hilliary, Obama, Kennedy and the rest of the defeatocrats are trying their very best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their hate for Bush is stronger than their love for the U.S. Their actions amount to nothing more than legal treason.
I really hate this sort of thing. Opposition is not treason. If we manage to win and establish peace in Iraq it will be solely by the courage of the American soldier. The planning for and management of the occupation has been incompetent.
Our Revolutionary War lasted 6 years. If the defeatocrats had been in charge, we'd still be under British rule.Treaty of Paris-September 1783. 7 years.
-
I have to add something-wherever he got the story was probably touting the budget deficit reduction as an actual accomplishment. Confusion between the terms 'deficit' and 'debt' makes it easy to try and gain political capital with stories like this. Anyone who knows much about business or politics knows about inflating projected budgets though.
-
It seems pretty clear to me that BushBacker meant "deficit" instead of "debt" but I'm sure you guys have your motives for conducting the discussion the way you do.
Carry on.
Had he not tried to cover his rear I might agree with you. I think I've been fair on this topic-I provided sources. It is hard to feel too much pity for someone defending an absolutely wrong position with such venom as this:
Apparently, in your universe the English language is not used. You refer to the "Public Debt", the amount owed in mortgages and credit cards, etc. by the american public, which of course goes up as the population increases. I was quoting the "National Debt", the amount owed by the Federal Government, which Bush has reduced by 50 Billion since Jan.1st. You should stick to what you know best, comic books. -
It's nice to see that as usual, BushBacker has his facts wrong. So in an attempt to try to explain it to him I am typing this slowly on the computer so he can read it.
When the Office of Management and Budget set the projected deficit numbers they stated that the "projected deficit" would be in the neighborhood of 250 Billion. They could just as easily projected it to be 230 billion. In actuality, the total amount of the deficit will not be known until after September 30, 2007 which is the last day of the budget year. October 1 starts the new budget year.
However, what isn't being taken into consideration are the off budget items such as Social Security, the money spent in Iraq etc.
Currently, the Government has borrowed from the various government trust funds money in excess of 250 to 300 billion which has to be at some point paid back. Also they haven't included in their assesment the additional money spent in Iraq. When you combine all of the money that has been spent and subtract it from the money received and adding the borrowing of trust fund money, the actual budget deficit will be in the neighborhood of 615 to 618 billion dollars. The budget deficit hasn't been reduced. In actuality its gone up but thats the problem with this administration. They put out their deficit numbers using smoke and mirrors.
With regards to the National Debt, it is now 9 trillion dollars with 2 trillion owed to foreign countries. If you google national debt there is an article by Steve Mc Gourty. For those who think that Bush is such a great leader they might think differently after they read his article. I doubt it but maybe.
You'd think the 'national security' guys would be frothing mad about the amount of economic power given to other countries by our inability to balance our budget.
btw-link to the article for the Google-challenged:
-
Just in case...
Wikipedia article on government debt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt
(please note the first sentence)
and Wikipedia article on consumer debt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_debt
That should forestall any arguments.
-
Lead a sheltered life, do you ?
No, I just don't know anyone over the age of 16 who uses 'LMAO.'
Wating for 2smart to answer.
in Kearny
Posted
4 billion?
Moron.