And the South shall rise again

[Red1966]

Chrome is as ugly as win8 but it works. Rollie needs a better forum form someday.

Don't trust Chrome or Google.

 

[UncleBuck]

Doesn't work for me.

might want to ditch the 98 compaq, stormfront red.

 

[Red1966]

While that ideal is understandable (Not wanting the "easily swayed".); how is it practical? You catch a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. The fact is that some people's perceptions of an argument are colored by how you present it. While they may eventually see the error of their ways. How is deterring them (By encouraging that reaction.), instead of helping them overcome their "animal" reactions by turning the other cheek and highlighting the error of their logic, helping the situation?

While your quest for civility is admirable, I doubt you will have any success. But good luck!

 

[Red1966]

You seem quite sure. But, I can't take your word for it.

Is the "Big Bang" theory more credible? You know, there was nothing, then in a billionth of a second, everything that ever was, was created, all in just one tiny little spot. Sounds just as improbable as creationism.

 

[Red1966]

This "magic" and "unimaginable force" you speak of is God God doesn't need your recognition or approval or belief but to deny it is doing yourself a disservice recognize and appreciate the greatness of God, It is empowering and humbling, to fail to do so is denying yourself a great joy and inner peace. [youtube]zP7pgInSybI[/youtube]

So we should believe in God because that belief will give us inner peace? I would say that wasn't a convincing argument, but it has worked for hundreds of millions, maybe even billions.

 

[Red1966]

Well, don't get all preachy. That's the basic problem. I have the Peace of the inner Knowledge of Self. I practice inner Joy as an art form Joy of Self unencumbered by the worry of what "gave" me joy and all that. Funny I could call that Joy itself God, but you would not. You will say God gave that to me. I say, trust me. There is no such thing. It is you, my friend and your unbridled experience of Joy that matters to me without God in the way. In this thoughtless state of Joy, God is a thought. We thought of it, in the experience of inner Joy. No you insist, IT thought of us. I get it. I can argue both sides and have come to one conclusion. Now. That's it. All there is, all we need.

"Joy of Self" sounds like a euphemism for masturbation

 

[cannabineer]

Is the "Big Bang" theory more credible? You know, there was nothing, then in a billionth of a second, everything that ever was, was created, all in just one tiny little spot. Sounds just as improbable as creationism.

I would say there are two things that give Big Bang theory a real edge.
1) it hews to Occam's Razor and doesn't presuppose what we cannot demonstrate scientifically in any case: an extranatural seat of purpose, meaning, intent.
2) It doesn't rely on human traditions built upon revelations that cannot be tested in any way. cn

 

[Red1966]

I know legally he has no right at the moment. Doesn't make it right tho. Half the make up of the fetus is from the father.

The father supplies only one molecule, The single DNA molecule in the single sperm that enters the egg. The rest of the baby is produced by the mother. Not saying that is the standard that should apply here.

 

[Red1966]

might want to ditch the 98 compaq, stormfront red.

It's a software issue, not a hardware issue. But keep on proving you have nothing to say.

 

[kpmarine]

Doesn't make it right tho. Half the make up of the fetus is from the father.

There's a couple of potential issues I can see with that: abusive relationships and contraception failures (Both real and faked.). I also see a lot of legal battles that need not happen if the "50% for all consensual sex" idea. Desire to have sex does not directly imply a desire to have a child. If the sex was consensual, and the woman didn't intend to get pregnant, but it somehow happened anyways; why does the man now get to attempt to force that child upon her? (To be fair, I think if the man and woman's roles were reversed; it should be the same. If the sex wasn't intended for procreation, he shouldn't have to pay her to keep a baby that was never supposed to be part of the deal.) As a final question; how do you deal with this situation: Say a woman didn't intend to have a kid, got pregnant from a drunken hook up, and then her and the guy decided to keep it; she then realizes that said father is a drunk who can't hold down a job, and she works full time for minimum wage and lives on her own; she decides to get an abortion; father fights her on the grounds that his drunken unemployed ass is 50% of that child's genetic material, and should get say. The case now gets tied up in court until well after the legal window to abort. Thus the father gets what he wants, even if he loses the lawsuit; and the woman is screwed, even if she wins. I think it would get way too invasive. You'd have to start signing some sort of paper stating you didn't intend to "produce a child from this particular encounter" every time you got lucky, just to attempt to circumvent that whole issue.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's a software issue, not a hardware issue.

was that what your wives would say to you in the bedroom?

 

[Red1966]

I would say there are two things that give Big Bang theory a real edge. 1) it hews to Occam's Razor and doesn't presuppose what we cannot demonstrate scientifically in any case: an extranatural seat of purpose, meaning, intent. 2) It doesn't rely on human traditions built upon revelations that cannot be tested in any way. cn

Both irrelevant. The "Big Bang" theory is just pseudo-scientific creationism. Do you really think that an expanding universe (still only a theory, we can't even see the other side of our own galaxy) can be extrapolated backwards to prove that everything originated in a single point? Every day when school lets out, children come poring out the doors and scatter in all directions. Should we assume they all came from just one room, or just one desk, or just from a single point? No. I think the Big Bang theory is based on incorrect assumptions. The Big Bang theory implies that all the things that were, all the things that be, all the things that will ever be, were all preordained in that single instant at the beginning of time. The entire universe created and defined in that single moment. The idea of freewill becomes moot, as every particle of our beings, every stray electrical impulse (thought) was preordained.

 

[UncleBuck]

Both irrelevant. The "Big Bang" theory is just pseudo-scientific creationism. Do you really think that an expanding universe (still only a theory, we can't even see the other side of our own galaxy) can be extrapolated backwards to prove that everything originated in a single point? Every day when school lets out, children come poring out the doors and scatter in all directions. Should we assume they all came from just one room, or just one desk, or just from a single point? No. I think the Big Bang theory is based on incorrect assumptions. The Big Bang theory implies that all the things that were, all the things that be, all the things that will ever be, were all preordained in that single instant at the beginning of time. The entire universe created and defined in that single moment. The idea of freewill becomes moot, as every particle of our beings, every stray electrical impulse (thought) was preordained.

OMFG we got a fucking scholar here.

the universe is expanding, stormfront red. unlike your tolerance.

 

[Rancho Cucamonga]

The republicans hold onto the abortion issue like the dems hold on to the gun control issue. Both parties suck!

 

[cannabineer]

Both irrelevant. The "Big Bang" theory is just pseudo-scientific creationism. Do you really think that an expanding universe (still only a theory, we can't even see the other side of our own galaxy) can be extrapolated backwards to prove that everything originated in a single point? Every day when school lets out, children come poring out the doors and scatter in all directions. Should we assume they all came from just one room, or just one desk, or just from a single point? No. I think the Big Bang theory is based on incorrect assumptions. The Big Bang theory implies that all the things that were, all the things that be, all the things that will ever be, were all preordained in that single instant at the beginning of time. The entire universe created and defined in that single moment. The idea of freewill becomes moot, as every particle of our beings, every stray electrical impulse (thought) was preordained.

The Big Bang theory breaks with any sort of creationism by removing the intent. All creation stories require a creator ... with the exception of Big Bang. There it is posited that we don't know/don't care what precipitated that very first moment, if anything. No creation myth of which i heard uses pure random spontaneity as its driver.
Galactic opacity and children in classrooms are not to point imo. There is a large and diverse corpus of studies based on actual measurable phenomena that strongly point to the universe having been tiny, dense and hot mere micromoments after time zero. This is what differentiates theory (as scientists use the word) from "theory" (which is what the scientifically not-literate-enough think is used to denote what is at best hypothesis). cn

 

[Red1966]

There's a couple of potential issues I can see with that: abusive relationships and contraception failures (Both real and faked.). I also see a lot of legal battles that need not happen if the "50% for all consensual sex" idea. Desire to have sex does not directly imply a desire to have a child. If the sex was consensual, and the woman didn't intend to get pregnant, but it somehow happened anyways; why does the man now get to attempt to force that child upon her? (To be fair, I think if the man and woman's roles were reversed; it should be the same. If the sex wasn't intended for procreation, he shouldn't have to pay her to keep a baby that was never supposed to be part of the deal.) As a final question; how do you deal with this situation: Say a woman didn't intend to have a kid, got pregnant from a drunken hook up, and then her and the guy decided to keep it; she then realizes that said father is a drunk who can't hold down a job, and she works full time for minimum wage and lives on her own; she decides to get an abortion; father fights her on the grounds that his drunken unemployed ass is 50% of that child's genetic material, and should get say. The case now gets tied up in court until well after the legal window to abort. Thus the father gets what he wants, even if he loses the lawsuit; and the woman is screwed, even if she wins. I think it would get way too invasive. You'd have to start signing some sort of paper stating you didn't intend to "produce a child from this particular encounter" every time you got lucky, just to attempt to circumvent that whole issue.

Wouldn't make any difference. You don't intend to have car wrecks, but you're still responsible for them, even if you did sign a piece of paper. Many dry cleaners have signs up saying "Not responsible for lost, stolen, or damaged clothing". They're still responsible. Writing down you're not responsible for your actions when you know the possible results doesn't absolve you from liability when you engage in those activities.

 

[UncleBuck]

dry cleaners and car accidents disprove the big bang according to stormfront red.

then there is his example of kids leaving a school. stormfront red is an expert at watching kids leave school at the end of the day. just not his own anymore.

 

[Red1966]

dry cleaners and car accidents disprove the big bang according to stormfront red. then there is his example of kids leaving a school. stormfront red is an expert at watching kids leave school at the end of the day. just not his own anymore.

Back to misquoting again? You seem preoccupied with children. Good thing your wife won't have sex with you.

 

[Red1966]

was that what your wives would say to you in the bedroom?

Just yours.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Big bang theory and evolution are their own religions. JMO.