Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

[zsdersw]

Tony De Vit. One of my favorite DJ's. Died age 41. He was HIV positive. 32 of his 42 boyfriends that year said they were shocked to hear that he was HIV positive.

On the other hand you will become a filthy rich under a month just doing divorce cases for gay couples. They get tired of each other very quickly.

I couldn't think of a more fitting avatar for you than the one you have... though I don't know whether you're cute or not.

 

[Carfax83]

As for your question, who's denying it? We all rely on science to answer questions for us. But accepting those answers is conditional on reason, analysis and evidence. And new analysis and evidence is welcomed if it passes intellectual muster.

I certainly dont' rely on Scientists to answer questions for me. I rely on my common sense first, then I'll see what other informed opinions say.

Scientists can be frequently, and disastrously wrong. Trial and error is part of the nature of Science, and sometimes erroneous notions and beliefs can persist for centuries before they're overturned.

This contrasts with religion, where answers are accepted without evidence or reason, questioning is discouraged, and analysis and evidence are considered heresy.

Yes I agree with you here. This is one of the many reasons why I turned away from religion many years ago.

You're ducking the issue, which is that many of them would not have understood and would have assigned these phenomena to the work of "gods", something we now know to be silly.

I got your point. I'm just saying the Ancients weren't as naive as we've been led to believe..

There's no reason that in 5,000 years we won't similarly have answers to questions that people like you answer with mythology.

Ooooh, thinly veiled insult here :awe:

They haven't actually become any more sophisticated. They've just gotten more deceptive. Even the name "intelligent design" is a deliberate fabrication intended to mislead people.

OK let me ask you something Charles. Do you find anything remotely clever and sophisticated about the inner workings of living creatures?

And if so, would you deign to say that those inner workings match, or surpass man made designs in terms of their efficiency, order and complexity?

Yes, actually, it is. It is automatically worthless, because it is based on a fraud.

It's only fraudulent if you assume there is no evidence of design or intelligence in Nature.

Then why do you keep capitalizing the synonyms for God the way members of Abrahamic religions do?

It's hardly unusual in the English (and many others) language to capitalize references or synonyms for God. So whether you use the Creator, the Source, God, Supreme Being, they are all capitalized..


I also do it out of profound respect..

You obviously belong to some religious belief system. So what is it?

I told you, I'm a Deist. And Deists have no shared religious or philosophical framework, other than their belief in a transcendent God, due to observation and reason.

Thereby proving that a few great scientists and thinkers were naive about creationism. Congratulations.

So just because their philosophy doesn't match up with yours, they are naive? Men that have devoted their entire lives to the Scientific cause, and made discoveries that have impacted the entire World and all creatures within it for centuries........brought low by the great Charles Kozierok, internet armchair Scientist extraordinaire! D:


The irony is so sweet it's actually bitter :\

I very much do have an idea of how many current scientists believe in evolution versus creationism. The information is very easy to find. You could have found it if you wanted to -- but you didn't. This is the classic religious approach, used for centuries -- deny the existence of anything you don't want to admit to.

There are millions of Scientists in the World today.. You can't expect me to believe such a small (and outdated) sampling to be representative of the worldwide Scientific community do you?

Also, for your information, depending on the context used, evolution does not necessarily conflict with a belief in a Creator.

For example, while I believe in evolution as a fact, I don't accept certain aspects of the theory of evolution, ie the reliance of random mutation as the catalyst creates changes; something which is now known to be false as epigenetics has demonstrated..

Uh, no, he was specifically NOT brainwashed BECAUSE he went against the RCC. Why would you even try to make such a silly argument?

The argument is valid because Copernicus ultimately believed in God (the Christian God at that), something which apparently automatically makes him naïve and brainwashed in your jaded philosophy.

Also, your other jargon about "older thinkers" being products of their times, and "brainwashed in a Society where heresy often exposed one to physical danger." These are your exact words, which when measured against historical fact, make you look like quite the imbecile.

Then why did you suggest that he did? You claimed Einstein believed in creationism, which is utterly preposterous.

I claimed Einstein believed in creationism, because he was a Deist, and so believed in a Creator Being.

Creationism when used in it's broadest context, does not specifically refer to the Biblical account, which in my opinion is pure hog wash..

Creationism in the context I was referring to, means that you believe Life, the Universe etc was created. So basically, anyone that believes in a Creator is by definition, a creationist.

That's a non-response. I repeat what I said before: intelligent design is creationism is intelligent design. Everyone knows exactly what "the Creator" is supposed to refer to. This is about as opaque as a hooker asking a man at a bar if he wants to "have some fun", and the man claiming later that he thought she wanted to go play mini golf.

Actually, there are some ID proponents that believe life on Earth may have been seeded by a hyper advanced form of extraterrestrial life..

So not all ID supporters believe in the Creator. Of course, if you believe life on Earth was seeded by extraterrestrials, then you obviously have to ask what created those extraterrestrials in the first place..

As Alzan said, that's not really correct. If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the matter of what occurred before it is unknown (and, some say, unknowable).

What did I say about the Big Bang theory that wasn't correct? All the evidence points to the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

I suppose whether it's the Big Bang or not is irrelevant. All that matters is that it had a beginning.

Mathematics of Eternity proves the Universe must have had a beginning

Because it could well have always been there in some form or another?

Now you're postulating, and ignoring the very Scientific evidence you hold so dear.. I find it interesting that in order to maintain your materialistic views, you have no choice but to deny current scientific evidence which goes against your views.

This distinction between "material" and "immaterial" was something invented by creationists specifically to allow their God to always exist and the universe not to. One tiny problem: it's entirely arbitrary. There's no reason to believe that something material requires a casual explanation and something immaterial does not.

I think I should have explained my position a bit better. It's not so much a matter of material and immaterial, but of beginning and beginningless.

Everything that has a beginning, must have a cause according to the laws causality. Since the evidence points to the Universe having a definite beginning, then by necessity it must also have a cause.

We Deists (and other people that believe in a Creator) believe that God is the Primal Cause, and thus does not require a beginning to exist. The Creator has always existed, and is the Source from which everything in phenomenal reality comes from, and ultimately returns to.

No matter how you try to slice it, the answer to "At first there was God" is always "Where did God come from?". And when the response is "God was always there", the response is always "Well, the universe could have always been there".

You're still not getting it. I've already explained that according to Scientific evidence, the Universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it must have had a cause.

God on the other hand, being the Primal Cause, does not require a beginning to exist.

Both false and irrelevant: research into abiogenesis is ongoing, and as I already said: "Lack of evidence of theory A does not constitute evidence for theory B."

I like your "Faith." ()

I'll grant that you may well think so, as you strike me as more honest than the typical ID/creationist. But then people believe in all sorts of silly things.

Silly things, like abiogenesis? :biggrin:

Examine the evidence and the reasoning, and update my understanding and viewpoints as warranted. What else would I do

If this is a true statement, then I commend you.. Still, I would advise you to rely more on your common sense than what Scientists say..

Unfortunately, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. The form of the argument is flawed, and the premises are easily refuted. (And please, don't quote William Lane Craig at me, or I will be forced to laugh.)

Do you agree, or disagree that the Universe had a beginning?

Lovely theory. Now prove that "consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality". Good luck with that one!

You are profoundly ignorant as only a materialist can be. This whole time, you've been assuming that Science backs up your materialistic views on reality; but this is not the case.

Research into quantum mechanics has for decades, shown that reality is fundamentally subjective, and determined by the observer.

In other words, reality does not exist as a concrete principle, but in fact is determined by the Observer, or conscious being observing it. This is called the Observer Effect, and has been researched extensively by Scientists for decades..

I find it curiously ironic that Science is beginning to resemble more and more the ancient esoteric philosophies that asserted the subjective nature of Reality, and the Unity of Creation.

Usually I can. Not always.

It's relatively easy to find patterns and objects in nature that look like they were deliberately designed, but were not.

Usually you can, because "design" is something that is immediately apparent to an intelligent being. You can even tell the degree and quality of design, by examining the design itself and it's efficiency.

Prove it.

I don't have to prove anything. The only thing I should have done different was say that there is no natural force KNOWN TO SCIENCE that can explain how atoms and molecules could self assemble and form into conscious beings.

But it seems faith is an acceptable notion for you, since you seemingly have no problem holding out for some miraculous Scientific discovery that will verify your materialistic belief structure..

Too bad you are in for disappointment though. Materialism, just like classical physics, is on the way out and has been for years..

 

[Carfax83]

Doesn't matter. Information (strength and location of Earth's magnetic poles) is encoded (parameters of the magnetic field) and decoded (particles in basalt align with the magnetic field) by purely physical processes.

I think you need to look up what actually constitutes a code. According to the Wiki entry, a code is:

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

Now, judging by that definition, do you think your example still qualifies as a code? I think not.

The Earth's magnetic field is just a force, and contains no code, no symbols, no encoding or decoding system.. It's no more a code than say gravity, as it represents nothing other than itself.

"Agreed upon meaning" has nothing to do with whether information is coded and decoded. It's just physics and chemistry.

That's a profoundly idiotic statement. So when you have a conversation with someone that speaks a different language than you (one that you can't understand), you are still able to understand them because the laws of physics and chemistry somehow enable you to do so? :awe:

You know, unless you're a dishonest creationist/IDer (i.e., all of them) trying to peddle your circular logic that "we only know of coding systems designed by intelligent agents" while defining a "coding system" as "something designed by an intelligent agent".

I never defined the coding system as something designed by an intelligent agent, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

I merely said, that all known codes stem from intelligent or sentient beings...

 

[zsdersw]

Usually you can, because "design" is something that is immediately apparent to an intelligent being.

This seems to be the basis for ID, but the fatal flaw in it is that it assumes as proper a high degree of anthropomorphism.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I certainly dont' rely on Scientists to answer questions for me. I rely on my common sense first, then I'll see what other informed opinions say.

You rely on the analysis and discoveries of scientists to allow you to use what you call "common sense".

When you go to the doctor. When you drive your car. When you use your computer. We are all highly specialized, and we rely on others' knowledge to answer things that they know more about than we do.

And sometimes common sense is very wrong. Every day doctors see patients who thought by "common sense" that they had one ailment when it turned out to be another. Just as a common pop example, how about "brain freeze" from eating ice cream? Ever heard of referred pain?

Your question -- "Why can't you just admit you rely on Scientists to answer these questions for you?" -- not only isn't the putdown you imagined it to be, but you reveal a lack of understanding in even asking it.

Scientists can be frequently, and disastrously wrong.

Yes, they can. But that's why there is a scientific method, which is both rational and self-correcting.

Yes I agree with you here. This is one of the many reasons why I turned away from religion many years ago.

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here.

You claim to believe in deism, a philosophy so tied to the existence of god that the word itself comes from the Latin word for "god". The claim that deism is not religion is so preposterous that I can't imagine anyone would make it.

Ooooh, thinly veiled insult here :awe:

It's not an insult to describe your philosophy -- which relies on supernatural explanations for which there is no evidence -- as mythology.

OK let me ask you something Charles. Do you find anything remotely clever and sophisticated about the inner workings of living creatures?

Absolutely.

And if so, would you deign to say that those inner workings match, or surpass man made designs in terms of their efficiency, order and complexity?

In some cases, yes. In some cases, absolutely not.

But I fail to even see the point of the question. Humans have only really been serious about science for a few hundred years. Give us a million, and we could easily make things far more sophisticated than the most complex natural processes.

It's only fraudulent if you assume there is no evidence of design or intelligence in Nature.

Incorrect. "Intelligent design" is fraudulent because it misrepresents its origins and its real intentions. It is also fraudulent because it pretends to be a form of science when it is not.

Misrepresentation is fraud.

It's hardly unusual in the English (and many others) language to capitalize references or synonyms for God. So whether you use the Creator, the Source, God, Supreme Being, they are all capitalized..

It is common in English to capitalize "God". It is very uncommon for people to capitalize synonyms for God except for those who are highly religious.

I also do it out of profound respect..

Respect for what, exactly? Last time you said: "I am not a member of any Church or Religion." So what are you so concerned about respecting?

I told you, I'm a Deist. And Deists have no shared religious or philosophical framework, other than their belief in a transcendent God, due to observation and reason.

Deists, like members of most religious beliefs, have fairly wide views on various things. It's not as simple as you're laying out here.

So just because their philosophy doesn't match up with yours, they are naive? Men that have devoted their entire lives to the Scientific cause, and made discoveries that have impacted the entire World and all creatures within it for centuries........brought low by the great Charles Kozierok, internet armchair Scientist extraordinaire! D:

*sigh*

No, they were not naive because their philosophies don't match up with mine. They were naive because they claimed to be scientists, but based at least part of their philosophy on utterly unscientific methods and principles.

There are millions of Scientists in the World today.. You can't expect me to believe such a small (and outdated) sampling to be representative of the worldwide Scientific community do you?

Here I must strongly object to what I consider to be overt intellectual dishonesty.

Days ago, you wrote this:

You have absolutely no idea how many current scientists and thinkers are creationists, so don't even pretend you do..

And I replied, thus:

Here we have a nice encapsulation of the difference between science and.. whatever it is you are doing.

I very much do have an idea of how many current scientists believe in evolution versus creationism. The information is very easy to find. You could have found it if you wanted to -- but you didn't. This is the classic religious approach, used for centuries -- deny the existence of anything you don't want to admit to.

For your benefit:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]


Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience,[32][33] or junk science.[34][35] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[26]

Your response this morning completely ignores all of this evidence with shamelessly transparent handwaving.

Creationism is a fringe view among scientists. I've provided evidence to back it up. You've provided nothing to support your implication that creationism and science are compatible.

Also, for your information, depending on the context used, evolution does not necessarily conflict with a belief in a Creator.

That's true. However, the evidence I provided indicates not just that most scientists believe in evolution, but that they specifically reject creationism.

The argument is valid because Copernicus ultimately believed in God (the Christian God at that), something which apparently automatically makes him naïve and brainwashed in your jaded philosophy.

As I already admitted, I believe, there's nothing that precludes someone from having unscientific views and also contributing to science. This was hundreds of years ago, and as I said, people then were the product of their times -- a strongly authoritarian church.

Ultimately, you bring up an example of someone who is a scientist and religious, even though the two clashed openly during his lifetime and beyond. I don't see how this strengthens your attempt to valid a link between religion and science.

Also, your other jargon about "older thinkers" being products of their times, and "brainwashed in a Society where heresy often exposed one to physical danger." These are your exact words, which when measured against historical fact, make you look like quite the imbecile.

You're entitled to your opinion. I think it's simply a historical reality.

I claimed Einstein believed in creationism, because he was a Deist, and so believed in a Creator Being.

Well, this gets very complicated.

Einstein's religious views changed through his life, and were very confusing throughout. Even today, nobody can really agree on what he was.

Some say he was an atheist. Some say he was a deist. But he also claimed to believe in a god concept as defined by Baruch Spinoza, which is really a sort of pantheism.

Creationism in the context I was referring to, means that you believe Life, the Universe etc was created. So basically, anyone that believes in a Creator is by definition, a creationist.

I suppose I can agree with this very narrow definition, as long as you acknowledge that this is NOT what 99% of creationists mean by the word.

Actually, there are some ID proponents that believe life on Earth may have been seeded by a hyper advanced form of extraterrestrial life..

As you admit in the next paragraph, this just defers the ultimate question.

I think you also have another problem here, which ironically, is of your own making. You claim that creationism and evolution can be held at the same time. You further claim that because Einstein believed in some sort of god concept that he was a "creationist".

Your problem is that even if true, the ONLY thing you have shown is that Einstein believes that the universe was created by "something". That in no way shows that he believed in what is now called "intelligent design".

Furthermore, Einstein specifically is on record as supporting a view of god where that concept/being/aspect of nature has no interest whatsoever in the affairs of human beings. His overall views are more naturalist.

For example: "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Can you find anything Einstein ever said that actually supports the idea of some Creator specifically creating life forms?

What did I say about the Big Bang theory that wasn't correct? All the evidence points to the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

Yes, and says nothing about what existed before our universe, which was my point.

Now you're postulating, and ignoring the very Scientific evidence you hold so dear..

What evidence am I ignoring? It's entirely scientific, when we have no evidence for something one way or the other, to just say "we don't know".

We Deists (and other people that believe in a Creator) believe that God is the Primal Cause, and thus does not require a beginning to exist. The Creator has always existed, and is the Source from which everything in phenomenal reality comes from, and ultimately returns to.

Sorry, I still find this to be a wholly arbitrary distinction. The argument is created specifically to justify belief in a "primal cause" and has nothing behind it.

God on the other hand, being the Primal Cause, does not require a beginning to exist.

If you define the parameters so that you win the argument, you win the argument. It's called "begging the question".

I like your "Faith." ()

You appear to have lost your patience here and stopped even trying to respond reasonably.

I said: "research into abiogenesis is ongoing" and (for the third time): "Lack of evidence of theory A does not constitute evidence for theory B."

Where is there "faith" in there?

Silly things, like abiogenesis? :biggrin:

No, silly things like universes that can't always exist, but "primal causes" that can, because, well, one of them is material and the other is immaterial! And we know this because we said so!

Like that.

If this is a true statement, then I commend you.. Still, I would advise you to rely more on your common sense than what Scientists say..

When it comes to the natural world, today's common sense is yesterday's scientific discovery.

And if you think common sense is the cat's meow, you haven't looked much unto quantum physics.

Do you agree, or disagree that the Universe had a beginning?

I think this universe probably did. But before that, nobody knows.

Incidentally, one of the people who speculated on this? Albert Einstein.

You are profoundly ignorant as only a materialist can be. This whole time, you've been assuming that Science backs up your materialistic views on reality; but this is not the case.

Research into quantum mechanics has for decades, shown that reality is fundamentally subjective, and determined by the observer.

In other words, reality does not exist as a concrete principle, but in fact is determined by the Observer, or conscious being observing it. This is called the Observer Effect, and has been researched extensively by Scientists for decades..

I find it curiously ironic that Science is beginning to resemble more and more the ancient esoteric philosophies that asserted the subjective nature of Reality, and the Unity of Creation.

Lovely speech. But I asked you to prove that "consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality". You didn't even come close.

I don't have to prove anything. The only thing I should have done different was say that there is no natural force KNOWN TO SCIENCE that can explain how atoms and molecules could self assemble and form into conscious beings.

Oh dear, you've now resorted to a high-school-level burden of proof reversal fallacy.

You made a specific claim: "There's no natural force that could explain how atoms and molecules self combine into more complex forms, and gain consciousness."

If you want that to be believed, you need to prove it. Doing so requires you not just to show that we don't know of any natural force that can do so now, but that no such natural force can ever exist.

All we can honestly say right now is that we don't know.

But it seems faith is an acceptable notion for you, since you seemingly have no problem holding out for some miraculous Scientific discovery that will verify your materialistic belief structure..

Does it make you feel better to continue to accuse me of "faith", even though you can't explain exactly what it is I have faith in? I'm not holding out for anything. I fully expect to go to my grave with thousands of questions I wish I could get answered, but never will.

Too bad you are in for disappointment though. Materialism, just like classical physics, is on the way out and has been for years..

I guess we'll see! That's what's great about the scientific method. If new information arises, then our current understanding of the world can be challenged and, if necessary, corrected.

So maybe I will one day have reason to change my views. But it's only going to happen as a result of solid evidence and sound reasoning, and sorry, but you've provided neither.

 

[Carfax83]

Damn you Charles.. I can't believe you posted a reply that quickly!

How the fuck am I supposed to keep up at this pace with four kids, a wife and a full time job? :\

I hope you don't expect a reply from me today, because it's not coming..

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't.

I really shouldn't be wasting this much time on this stuff, but I can't help myself.

I almost begged off and didn't respond, but once I got started...

Take as long as you need.

ETA: For what it's worth, I realized after I wrote that post that we are talking past each other on an important aspect, and that's what exactly "creationism" means. You seem to be defining it solely on the basis of our argument about whether or not there was a "primal source" or whatever. But when you jumped in, I was arguing with Rob, and "creationism" to him means the whole kit and kaboodle. These are very different things.

You're further confusing me by also asking typical ID questions about complexity, which again leads back to the "Sky Daddy" model, not just discussing who made the universe.

 

[alzan]

What did I say about the Big Bang theory that wasn't correct? All the evidence points to the fact that the Universe had a beginning.

I suppose whether it's the Big Bang or not is irrelevant. All that matters is that it had a beginning.

Mathematics of Eternity proves the Universe must have had a beginning

The data we have gathered to date points to there being a point in the distant past (just after the 'Big Bang') past which we cannot see. I've probably got the numbers incorrect but if we say for this example that if the "Big Bang" happened exactly 13.5 billion years ago, we with our present instruments can only see back 13.49999999995 billion years. We cannot "see" the moment of the "Big Bang". What we can't see could be a "beginning", it could also be the transfer of matter from one state to another; not a beginning but as part of a continuous cycle, as is referred to in one part of the article you linked.

What Mithani and Vilenkin propose is interesting; I don't know enough about math or even cosmology to argue with them. The article is from last year; have they done any more analysis, has their work been peer reviewed, have any other mathmeticians repeated their analysis and proved it false or true? I think it's great that they challenge the theory but I'd have to see a lot more of their peers reviewing, testing data and reaching the same conclusion before I'm convinced.

 

[GreenMeters]

I think you need to look up what actually constitutes a code. According to the Wiki entry, a code is:

A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.

Now, judging by that definition, do you think your example still qualifies as a code? I think not.

Absolutely. Information (strength and orientation of Earth's magnetic field) is converted from one form (electromagnetic field) to another (alignment of magnetic minerals in crystallized basalt).

That's a profoundly idiotic statement. So when you have a conversation with someone that speaks a different language than you (one that you can't understand), you are still able to understand them because the laws of physics and chemistry somehow enable you to do so? :awe:

Are you claiming that just because this hypothetical person and I don't speak the same language, our speech is not coding information?

 

[Retro Rob]

I should be working on my guide rewrite but these are good questions.



It's hard to answer this. I'd say that the changes we are making are part of our evolution.

We've even really created a different sort of evolution through our societies. How do men and women choose mates today compared to even 100 years ago? Very different.

Y'know, this sounds the equivalent to the "can't explain it, God did it", type of answer, or in this case "evolution did it". You don't know the answer, just blame or attribute it to evloution?

This is funny because I know that you're using currently available evidence, but so do I - the difference being that I attribute it to a Designer and you, blind chance. You say I can't prove this creator, but you've also admitted in this thread that evloution isn't fact, though it should be given the amount of evidence.

You and I are not so much different in the fact that we examine the same evidence, but attribute it to a different "cause", for lack of a better term.

(Of course, it takes a certain level of understanding of reasoning to differentiate a false statement from speculation or opinion. Plus, you have a habit of just dropping things you can't deal with. So I'm not going to hold my breath.)

I will argue to an extent, but my goal isn't to win arguments, Charles. At the end of the day, I just like exchanging information, and typically try to flee from bickering.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

At the end of the day, I just like exchanging information, and typically try to flee from bickering.

That's not very consistent with accusing me of making false statements and then not providing any examples.

 

[LunarRay]

I will argue to an extent, but my goal isn't to win arguments, Charles. At the end of the day, I just like exchanging information, and typically try to flee from bickering.

OK... how about exchanging your view regarding a few things about your observations.

Do you accept that the speed of light is approx. 186,280 miles per second (in a vacuum)?

How distant do you believe the nearest star is to Earth and how far is the farthest Galaxy that you can see? (Science indicates the nearest star is about 4.2 light years away)

Assuming the answer to the above questions is consistent with the rather obvious and generally accepted factors my third question would be: IF you, as you have stated, believe the Earth is only 10,000 - 20,000 years old at the outside how old do you believe the rest of the universe might be?

If you want you can calculate... let's say... the nearest star factors... and use the same logic to determine the age of it and of the furthest galaxy... A crude method might be to consider the size of our sun versus the size of the nearest star and furthest galaxy as seen from your porch... calculate the ratio and apply C to that and deduce the age.... perhaps.

 

[LunarRay]

Y'know, this sounds the equivalent to the "can't explain it, God did it", type of answer, or in this case "evolution did it". You don't know the answer, just blame or attribute it to evloution?

I once asked my favorite Jesuit, Brother Timothy, why God might have created more than just the Earth and the Sun.... IF this Universe was for us it seems superfluous to have all these extra bits not to mention all the bits said to be flitting about with no apparent purpose other than to crash into us... (asteroids, comets, etc.) He responded with something like, "God works in strange ways".
Me being a grammar skule student and he a Phd Physicist both sitting in a Catholic Academy environment never produced an understanding in my mind for anything. But, it did produce an active doubt about what was taught and what I thought I could see.
We hear about 'Common Sense'.... What is that? It ain't all that common or rather it ain't the same among each of us... Each of us has different understandings that is applied to our observations on most anything... and it produces an "Individual Sense"...

You've said that when we die we sorta go to sleep for eternity... That sounds like Martin Luthur. But, that don't sound like the bible. I'd be interested in from where in the bible do you conclude the absence of heaven and hell?

 

[cave_dweller]

So a lesbian and a transvestite is allowed to marry each other but not two lesbians.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want to go into a legal binding contract with another person of the same sex make your own word. Call it garriage or whatever you want. But its not a marriage. They can't just come and steal words and change meanings just for them? What makes them special. Make up your own words and meanings and get it stamped. Problem solved

 

[spittledip]

I once asked my favorite Jesuit, Brother Timothy, why God might have created more than just the Earth and the Sun.... IF this Universe was for us it seems superfluous to have all these extra bits not to mention all the bits said to be flitting about with no apparent purpose other than to crash into us... (asteroids, comets, etc.) He responded with something like, "God works in strange ways".

God created the universe for Himself, not us. God created us for Himself as well.

 

[cave_dweller]

Just one thing. If state xxx do not want to legalize it what can the government or supreme court do? They are limited by the constitution correct? So if force them to change the constitution so they have the power to interfere you also then will give them the power to do other things as well. Is this correct?

So are you prepared to give the government more power for the sake of a minority of 2 percent of the total population?

 

[LunarRay]

Just one thing. If state xxx do not want to legalize it what can the government or supreme court do? They are limited by the constitution correct? So if force them to change the constitution so they have the power to interfere you also then will give them the power to do other things as well. Is this correct?

So are you prepared to give the government more power for the sake of a minority of 2 percent of the total population?

Well, ... not quite.

The Supremacy Clause coupled with the 14th and other Amendments sorta makes Federal Law binding on the States. It was not always that way nor was it intended by the Founders to be that way but it is what it is today. The Supreme Court can and has determined Gay Marriage Rights are NOT a Federal Question and that defers to the States... I think the current control is Nelson v Minn...
Now... the Federal Marriage Act, DOMA seems to violate a few provisions of the Constitution (as interpreted) So I expect that to be overturned. Prop 8 in California ought not be 'forced' on the other States because in that issue Gay Folks had the right that the Prop took away.... Because the Strict Scrutiny level is applicable (Fundamental Right of a Suspect Class) to do so and the State nor the Prop folks met that standard or even close I expect the USSC to sustain the Federal District Court and the 9th Circuit.

 

[LunarRay]

God created the universe for Himself, not us. God created us for Himself as well.

That don't quite fit with...

"

This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens …’ (Genesis 2:4). ​

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was void and darkness covered the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters … (verse 6) God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters that are below from the waters that are above.” God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse, from the waters which were above the expanse. God called the
expanse Heavens … God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered into one place (the oceans), and let the dry land appear.” And it was so … (verse 14) God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs for seasons, days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” God made the two great lights; the greater light (the sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the
night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light to the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness, and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:1 to 18) … Thus the heavens and the earth were finished‘ (Genesis 2:1).​

I suppose one might construe that God made stuff for himself and shared it with mankind but it seems to me it is not perfect and I'd have thought God was perfect... Well, unless there is reason for the asteroids and comets and the like... Black holes and given the expansion of the universe we'll not see the other galaxy islands as they skip away...

 

[LunarRay]

So a lesbian and a transvestite is allowed to marry each other but not two lesbians.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want to go into a legal binding contract with another person of the same sex make your own word. Call it garriage or whatever you want. But its not a marriage. They can't just come and steal words and change meanings just for them? What makes them special. Make up your own words and meanings and get it stamped. Problem solved

There are States in which that seems to be the case and there are some States where Marriage is what it is and the folks who can enjoy that status are the individuals who wish to marry another individual be it boy or girl...
The word Marriage seems to be the construction of a contract that provides rights and responsibilities not assigned to unmarried folks. Why should some folks be using a different word to describe the same condition? This is not the Church of the United States...

 

[Moonbeam]

That don't quite fit with...

"

This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens …’ (Genesis 2:4). ​

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was void and darkness covered the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters … (verse 6) God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters that are below from the waters that are above.” God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse, from the waters which were above the expanse. God called the
expanse Heavens … God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered into one place (the oceans), and let the dry land appear.” And it was so … (verse 14) God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs for seasons, days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” God made the two great lights; the greater light (the sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the
night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light to the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness, and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:1 to 18) … Thus the heavens and the earth were finished‘ (Genesis 2:1).​

I suppose one might construe that God made stuff for himself and shared it with mankind but it seems to me it is not perfect and I'd have thought God was perfect... Well, unless there is reason for the asteroids and comets and the like... Black holes and given the expansion of the universe we'll not see the other galaxy islands as they skip away...

Dang, if that doesn't jibe with the trip I had as an embryo and a fetus. My Mom and Dad used to blame me for everything and I'm beginning to suspect why.

 

[LunarRay]

Dang, if that doesn't jibe with the trip I had as an embryo and a fetus. My Mom and Dad used to blame me for everything and I'm beginning to suspect why.

You're such a clown... hehehehehe

But, your responsibility among the Cosmos is to reflect what is directed toward you.... Those that can see let them observe what nature created. One must be cautioned, however, that under the inverse square law the further one is from the Light the less they see... The mind can travel to the end of the universe and never be aware of what a Moonbeam is.... ()

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally Posted by cave_dweller
So a lesbian and a transvestite is allowed to marry each other but not two lesbians.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you want to go into a legal binding contract with another person of the same sex make your own word. Call it garriage or whatever you want. But its not a marriage. They can't just come and steal words and change meanings just for them? What makes them special. Make up your own words and meanings and get it stamped. Problem solved

Quote:There are States in which that seems to be the case and there are some States where Marriage is what it is and the folks who can enjoy that status are the individuals who wish to marry another individual be it boy or girl...
The word Marriage seems to be the construction of a contract that provides rights and responsibilities not assigned to unmarried folks. Why should some folks be using a different word to describe the same condition? This is not the Church of the United States...

Yup and it looks like they did exactly as he suggested, they chose their own word and it's 'marriage'. Occam's razor logic, economy of language, a neat little package that, by golly, just fits the situation to a tee.

 

[spittledip]

That don't quite fit with...

-snip-

I suppose one might construe that God made stuff for himself and shared it with mankind but it seems to me it is not perfect and I'd have thought God was perfect... Well, unless there is reason for the asteroids and comets and the like... Black holes and given the expansion of the universe we'll not see the other galaxy islands as they skip away...

I don't think it is a matter of construing as most of the Bible talks about glorfying God. Sure, the sun, moon, and stars have their purpose, but that does not detract from the ultimate reason these things were created- as parts of a working universe. The better question is not "what is the purpose of the parts?" when discussing ultimate purpose. The better question is "What is the purpose of the whole?" It is like taking a musical composition and taking one note that resolves the melodic phrase, and saying "The purpose of this note is to resolve the melodic phrase." While this is definitely true, the note has another purpose on "another plane"- to be a part of a whole that is the musical composition of the author. What is the purpose of a musical composition? Usually to express an idea or thought or sentiment of the author. The same could be said of the universe.

I am not sure if anyone with any certainty can say that everything in the universe has a purpose as that is a pretty large question (re: asteroids, black holes, etc). I am sure some people have some ideas about that.

As to purpose from a Biblical standpoint:

Psalms 19:1-6

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.
--------------------

Psalms 148:

1 Praise the Lord.[a]
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
2 Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
3 Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
4 Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for at his command they were created,
6 and he established them for ever and ever—
he issued a decree that will never pass away.
7 Praise the Lord from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,
8 lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,
9 you mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars,
10 wild animals and all cattle,
small creatures and flying birds,
11 kings of the earth and all nations,
you princes and all rulers on earth,
12 young men and women,
old men and children.
13 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for his name alone is exalted;
his splendor is above the earth and the heavens.
14 And he has raised up for his people a horn,
the praise of all his faithful servants,
of Israel, the people close to his heart.
Praise the Lord.
--------------

Isaiah 43:6-7

6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
----------------

Isaiah 48:8-11

8 You have neither heard nor understood;
from of old your ears have not been open.
Well do I know how treacherous you are;
you were called a rebel from birth.
9 For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath;
for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
so as not to destroy you completely.
10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another.

 

[cave_dweller]

I don't think it is a matter of construing as most of the Bible talks about glorfying God. Sure, the sun, moon, and stars have their purpose, but that does not detract from the ultimate reason these things were created- as parts of a working universe. The better question is not "what is the purpose of the parts?" when discussing ultimate purpose. The better question is "What is the purpose of the whole?" It is like taking a musical composition and taking one note that resolves the melodic phrase, and saying "The purpose of this note is to resolve the melodic phrase." While this is definitely true, the note has another purpose on "another plane"- to be a part of a whole that is the musical composition of the author. What is the purpose of a musical composition? Usually to express an idea or thought or sentiment of the author. The same could be said of the universe.

I am not sure if anyone with any certainty can say that everything in the universe has a purpose as that is a pretty large question (re: asteroids, black holes, etc). I am sure some people have some ideas about that.

As to purpose from a Biblical standpoint:

Psalms 19:1-6

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.
--------------------

Psalms 148:

1 Praise the Lord.[a]
Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
2 Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
3 Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
4 Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for at his command they were created,
6 and he established them for ever and ever—
he issued a decree that will never pass away.
7 Praise the Lord from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,
8 lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,
9 you mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars,
10 wild animals and all cattle,
small creatures and flying birds,
11 kings of the earth and all nations,
you princes and all rulers on earth,
12 young men and women,
old men and children.
13 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for his name alone is exalted;
his splendor is above the earth and the heavens.
14 And he has raised up for his people a horn,
the praise of all his faithful servants,
of Israel, the people close to his heart.
Praise the Lord.
--------------

Isaiah 43:6-7

6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth—
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
----------------

Isaiah 48:8-11

8 You have neither heard nor understood;
from of old your ears have not been open.
Well do I know how treacherous you are;
you were called a rebel from birth.
9 For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath;
for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
so as not to destroy you completely.
10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another.

You seem to think that freedom imperils your personal religious views. Freedom is a prerequisite for your right to practice your religion

 

[cave_dweller]

There are States in which that seems to be the case and there are some States where Marriage is what it is and the folks who can enjoy that status are the individuals who wish to marry another individual be it boy or girl...
The word Marriage seems to be the construction of a contract that provides rights and responsibilities not assigned to unmarried folks. Why should some folks be using a different word to describe the same condition? This is not the Church of the United States...

Because its a package with qa neat contract with certain conditions. The problem is changing your constitution giving your government more power to interfere with peoples freedom for 2 percent of your population or just make up a different package for them with a different name without having to touch the constitution. Because at te moment a Supreme court nor a federal government can not touch a state who do not want to legalize it. Am I correct?