Cathy Pa

LOL

No, I don't think you are smarter than I, nor do I think that you are as smart as you think you are. That is what I was trying to say when I pointed out that there is so very much that you don't know.

And as to my having my fingers in my ears??? Excuse me??? It is not I who is closing down threads because I "don't consider it good science or good religion," it is the moderators of this forum who did that.

And as to insulting Mokele's mother, again, you misunderstand--I wasn't saying that she had a big dink, I was pointing out that she begat one when she birthed Mokele.

You do see the difference?

Anyway, since opening and reading a thread is not obligatory and since we seem to agree that God and by extension ID is at least a possibility, why slam the door on discussion? That is, why slam the door if you wish to appear to be open minded?

It appears from the above that there are more than a few in the scientific community who are not at all sure that there is no such thing as God.

If one believes in God, is not it also reasonable to believe that a God would be all powerful? And if God is all powerful, isn't anything therefore within the realm of possibility? Subject only, of course, to God's will? And if something is within the realm of possibility, doesn't that qialify it for discussion?

Now, I know that there are many here who think that they are privvy to alllllllll the secrets of the universe, and who want to demonstrate their vast knowledge by being impatient with those of us who are merely normal, but since the known facts regarding the universe and it's origins are so very small and what is yet to be learned is so very large, isn't this a little arrogant?

All of this discussion of "science" by the denizens little forum reminds me of a 16 year old child telling it's parents that they "just don't get it.":rolleyes:

Now, I know that this post will probably garner another of Moleke's cute little "warnings" in my PM box, but someone had to tell you little phoneys that your hat was getting a little too tight.

If ID was strictly a religious interpretation there would be no problem philosophising about it. But ID proponents are trying to argue that it is as valid as scientific theories which have been tested rigorously and should be taught alongside them in the public schools science classes. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore the fact that their ideas of what makes a theory are garbled and inept.

 

We can't allow bad information to go unchallenged and it drains our limited resources to keep challenging the same bad information in the numerous threads that try to defend ID in the same ways. It is insane to keep doing the same thing in the same way and hope for different results' date=' so it's probably best to just post a sticky that says any standard ID argument will be shut down.

 

I'd really have no problem with someone explaining their ID argument in a fresh new way, and that is what the Speculations forum is all about.[/quote']

 

Well who established these "laws of science?"

 

The scientific community?

 

According to a lot of religions, God is all powerful. If God is all powerful, could God so confuse the scientific community that these so-called scientific "proofs" only seemed to be valid?

 

Since no one can disprove the existence of God, who is to say what God's plan might be? In short, how can you be sure that you and your fellow scientists are not merely pawns in some grand scheme of things?

 

I have seen people here discuss alternate realities with a (presumed) straight face, I have seen discussions of time travel and wormholes in space and all manner of nonsense, so how can you be arrogant enough to dismiss a theory that there is such a thing as God?

That forum is for legitimate philosophy/religion. ID is both bad science *and* bad theology.

 

Do you have a degree in Theology?

As long as there is a philosophy/religion section on this "scientific" forum, isn't it a little hypocritical to disallow an ID thread?

All one needs to do after all, if one wishes to not be involved in a discussion about the viability of the ID theory is not read it.

Is that too much? :confused:

However' date=' even *if* it was a choice, well, so's religion. We have laws stating you cannot persecute someone for their faith, and most civilized individuals would consider something like that to be intolerant and hateful. So why balk at showing the same courtesy to other sexual orientations?

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

I agree to that.

 

I think that homosexuals should be treated with the same respect and courtesy by hetrosexuals, as Christians are treated to by atheists.

You wouldn't happen to be another syntax252 incarnation, would you?

Syntax252?

Who is this Syntax252? He seems to have made quite an impression around here.

Did he wear a mask and leave a silver bullet with someone?

Let's see' date=' Eastern Time zone (my guess is Michigan), AOL proxy server, indiscriminate use of smilies, hates me for no apparent reason....

 

Hi, syntax252!

 

Ordinarily I'd just let it pass, but I still remember the vulgar, foul-mouthed email message you sent me while my 6-year-old was in the room. I also remember your bigotry and your excessive strawmanning and all the hatred you brought to this forum.

 

Bye, syntax252![/quote']

 

Don't look now Phi, but I think you just made Ali's point for him......

 

Oop, I guess that is another "strawman" isn't it?

And making students pledge allegiance to a god they may not believe in is being intolerant towards[/i'] atheists.

But, as I understand it, nobody is making anybody recite the pledge.

You can be found guilty of slander. Unless you continue to express your opinions as ungrounded' date=' bias and shallow judgements. Which I'm guessing you are not inclined to do.[/quote']

 

It is slander to express an opinion about the guilt of Michael Jackson?

 

Give us a break!

Bettina' date=' Cathy Pa. You did not sit on the jury. You did not hear the evidence, you did not hear the rebuttals, you did not hear the redirects. You did not see the witnessess. You did not have an opportunity to assess their demeanour. You did not take detailed notes during the trial. You did not spend eight days reviewing the evidence and the credibility of the witnessess and the quality of the evidence with a group of other individuals who had gone through the same experience.

What you have done is taken a justifiable disgust for child abuse, combined it with a questionable dislike for bizarre character traits, and unreasonably joined a witch hunt.

Bettina, you have spoken eloquently on other threads of the curse of your empathic abilities. I'm just wondering where is your empathy for an innocent (in both senses of the word) forty four year old boy, who is found guilty by rumour, gossip and presumption within one of the courts of public opinion.[/quote']

 

Well I can't speak for Bettina, but as for me, he did it.

 

True, he was found not guilty in court, but then, in court the deck is stacked in favor of the defendant as it is supposed to be. We, on the other hand, don't have to give him the benifit of the doubt. We can judge him on any suspicious little incident about him and his colorful past that we wish, because all we are expressing, is our opinion.

 

My opinion is that I wouldn't let a child of mine stay on his ranch for all the money in the world, and I will bet that most of his supporters wouldn't either. Unless, of course, they would be hoping for a fondling incident to cash in on.

He is as guilty as sin.....I just can't prove it.

 

Bettina

He sure is' date=' but the parents of those kids are just as guilty as he is.

What kind of Mother would allow her child to spend the night with Michael Jackson after what has come out about [b']him[/b] in the last 10 years?

1. Judges can only sentence them to a term allowed by law.

 

2. They are often well-behaved in prison because their prey of choice is not available.

 

3. Psychological assessment of dangerousness does not extend sentences.

 

4. Most pedophile predators have behavior that cannot be changed. Only a life sentence would keep them up long enough to keep children safe. Remember' date=' many of those pedophile priests were hardly young.

 

Obviously the solution would be one that imprisons such criminals for life. However, remember that when juries are aware that that such a penalty awaits the accused, they are more reluctant to convict.[/quote']

 

I just think that a jury would convict for life if the pedophile was one of those who preyed on young children.

 

If the guy picks up someone in a bar who happens to be under the age of consent but looks 22 that is a little different. I think the jury can sort that out. But if these bozo's are the type who are out looking for little children of 8 and 9 years old, then what is wrong with life in prison? They are not going to get over their affliction and therefore they will always be a danger to kids.

If these sex offenders are considered a danger to children sufficient to impose a 2500 ft. law, why are they not still in jail?

Didn't this thread say large breasts in the beginning?

Has anyone here considered the possibility that Earth could have been seeded with the beginnings of life forms on purpose?

Not necessarily by God, but, if the universe is something like 20 billion years old and Earth only 4 billion years old, wouldn't it be possible that an alien life form could have evolved in another part of the universe that had the capability and the desire to spread life around a little?

I agree' date=' there is no logic in the belief that life came from outer space and then arrived here on earth.

Life is a purely natural occurrence on this planet, just as in the formation of the mineral kingdom.

The only ingredient for life arriving from outside, was energy in the form of light waves.[/quote']

 

Perhaps that is right, but since the universe is much older than Earth is, isn't it possible that life would have had a better chance of starting elsewhere first? And if so, then the possibility of some sort of "seeding" would seem to be at least a possibility?

As space exploration continues' date=' I believe it will be found that life was created during the early formation of the universe and once this life was "seeded" thrived on the planets that could support it and is still going on today. The present scientific "theory" of life originating on earth, in my opinion, will be in question. Life evolved from the oceans and I have no doubt that I rode in on a comet.

 

At one time I had a great link to a great explanation and I will find it shortly, but for now, check this out.

 

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/05/23/stories/2002052300020200.htm

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Hi.

 

I have been reading this forum for a while and today I registered just to ask this question.

 

If life came in on a comet or other missile from space, how did it survive the heat that was generated when it came through the atmosphere?