I can't understand why science can't explain why Monster cable is so darn good... Maybe I just have to... BELIEVE!!! ;>)

Thanks because you did a great job of proving my point!


Not without intellegent design!




The labs have scienetist - intellegent design - without them the compexity of molecules happening nautrally doesn't get much more complex than amino acetonitrile and only in deep space. Amino acetonitrile is fairly complex NH2CH2CN but that is nothing more than a precursor to proteins and you still have amino acids like tryptophan C11H12N2O2 one of twenty that are involved in living organisms. Here a link to the smallest man made protein [Link: aist.go.jp] You'll see it is incredible complex and your going to tell me that this can happen by coincidence. Read the crap they use to try to explain and justify this protein just happening.


Your right here because if you look at that molecule and try to tell me that in just happened your explination is ever bit as good as that.

Just where did the material for the Big Bang come from? Second time I've asked this. And you can use any big box retailer as the answer.:)

GOD HAD A WANK!

and it's just as good as yours. even more believable actually....

smokinghot that is exactly my point "and his space crap started the whole thing." is ever bit a feasible as in just happening via evolution. That is the image of one protein now those have to fit together to create life. Scientist can't even begin to replicate life in the laboratory and if they ever do that still by "intelligent design". You buy into one if not the the most ridiculous claims science has ever made because that is easier to accept for you than God. But I'm not open minded.

... and they argued until the day they died. All in vain, it turned out, because the answer to the question "what was before the Big Bang" can never be answered. Ever. By anyone. It's impossible to know. One of them thought he might be enlightened after he died and went to heaven. But alas, he was mistaken in that fantasy. Funny thing is, he'll never know that either. Once he died, the experience was akin to the experience he had before he was born; that is to say, he experienced nothing. That's because when you die the only thing that happens is you rot. There is no such thing as a "soul". Your brain is what generates the feeling that you are "you". When the brain dies, you die with it.

davidcasemore - you were the one that asked where did God come from/or what was before God. So very Nihilistic. But it makes sense if we evolve from nothing with no reason to exist it follows that our lives have no purposes and our existence is meaningless.

I was trying to make a point but it went right over your head. Sort of like the classroom material in your biology classroom. It's no wonder you failed biology.


I did not exist until I was a sentient human being.* After I die I will cease to exist.

But that does not mean that my life has no purpose or that it is meaningless. In fact, one of the "purposes" of MY life is to try and get people to stop believing in fairy tales so they can enjoy life in the here and now instead of thinking there is some sort of happy-ever-afterlife. (You're a lost cause). Being good for the sake of being good, rather than being good because you think you'll be rewarded by some god is a far, far better thing to do. There ain't no seventy-two virgins waitin' for ya!


*This is why abortion is A-Okay!

And so was I.


Can you prove that? Can you apply the scientific method to that and come up with that result? What definition of sentinent do we use? In Eastern philosophies water is a sentient being of first order. At what point does one become sentient? If a child is born that is brain damage non-sentinet do they not exist? If you have a accident and have brain damage do you no longer exist? At what point is someone no longer sentient? Is a person in the fifth stage of Alzheimer's sentient? By definition no! But ask that to that person family. Who determines this certainly not the individual, the family, the state? If you don't not exist if your not sentinet "I did not exist until I was a sentient human being." do you become disposable? That sounds like eugenics - Nazism but you did say you were a socialist and Nazi does stand for the National Socialism.


First man is not inherently good nor benevolent if we were we wouldn't be having this discussion because none of this would be and issue.
You're good is very relativistic. It only applies to people that think, believe and act like you. Once again you're making statements without any backing "so they can enjoy life in the here and now", "rather than being good because you think you'll be rewarded by some god" neither one of these concepts come from the Bible other religions maybe.


Wrong religion.


I have no right to say what someone else does with themselves, to themselves or with other consenting adults. But to say that abortion is not killing something living is a lie that is used to soften the blow. To call the life that is killed a fetus is an argument in semantics it's a baby. To base whether it's a life or not on it's viability outside of the uterus is pathetic. Call it what you like but it's killing a life. Once again I have to take you for another great segue. Without a standard for morals they can and will change and often to the prevailing ideas in the culture. At first abortion was only first tri-mester justified by it being a fetus, now it's OK for second tri-mester abortions but at the end of the second tri-mester that point of viability outside the uterus is reached so by the very definition used by the Pro-Choice people it is no longer a fetus but a baby. The Pro-Choice movement is pushing so third tri-mester abortions are allowed and again that fetus no longer a fetus but it is a baby. This is the most vile way to put someone to death. PETA screams about what happens to animals in slaughter houses this is worse. You on the left boo hoo the "torture" the people at Abu Grahb and Gitmo went through. They went through nothing compared to what a baby goes through in partial birth abortions (third tri-mester. They are pulled out with forceps, the skull is punctured and crushed and the dead body is removed. This is most often performed on a perfectly healthy mother and baby. [Link: npr.org] With moral relativism we've gone - in the past 40 years - from whether abortion is legal or not in the first tri-mester to fighting over the right for women to have access to partial birth abortions.

Before you start screaming about the womans right the founding fathers drew up these rights thinking that we would realize that with these rights come responsibilities. You have the right to use profanity but you have the responsibility to not say it so people that might be offended can hear it, the same with music. A woman unless she has had an a hysterectomy needs to be cognizant that no birth control method is 100% effective so if she doesn't want to get pregnant maybe she shouldn't have sex. That's the only way to be as close to 100% sure of that she wouldn't get pregnant. So now your going to bring up what about rape and incest. These are such a statistical small part of overall abortions that they aren't much of a issue - approximately 1% of all abortions. Now your going to bring up medical reasons effecting the mother or baby those are about 7% and this opens a whole different can of worms. In England a baby was determined to have birth defects. The medical profession with the backing of the government (great example of socialism and socialized medicine) came just short of forcing her to abort the baby. The woman refused the baby was born without any birth defects. How many healthy babies are aborted because they might have birth defects? So 92% of all abortions are out of convenience - her right - but where are her responsibilities?

Someone committing a crime causes a woman to lose her baby and this is murder but she can decide that she doesn't want this baby and that's abortion.

Let's just call it what it is and stop the euphemism of fetus for baby and abortion for killing. This doesn't effect her rights only puts it in the correct perspective.

Yes it's easier to accept. It's easier, because science has a track record of making claims and then proving them. Religion has none without conjecture, or personal interpretation of what's been written in a book a guy dreamed up. Correlating real world events of any time to the bible is parallel to a day time show psychic spitting out general statements, fishing for the sucker to make the connection for them.

Religion has proven nothing other than if you have a difference in opinion you could be killed, or tortured, or at the minimum are going to burn in hell. The positives of religious belief have come no where close to the negatives. For the record...I think faith is an incredible thing. However man's faith should be focused on themselves and other's around them. Not some mythological heavenly spirit that will save them if they follow the guidence of the door stop called the bible.

So again yes... My "faith" in the scientific theory of the Big Bang is easier. I'm extremely open minded. To the point where I'm not blinded by misguided faith, and can see the big picture. I can take in all the info, all the possibilities, and come to an educated opinion. Yours is clouded by your up bringing, and/or your need to have something in your life to hold on to. Something greater than yourself, telling you what to believe, how to act, and threatening discipline at every choice you have to make if it veers from what the "good" book tells you.

Please don't tell me I don't have an open mind until you've deprogrammed yourself and can look at the big picture without threat of eternal hellfire.

I am every bit as open minded as you but I don't accept the B.S. from science just because they - like you - can't handle something that they can not understand by empirical evaluation and come up with an insipid theory to keep them in their comfort zone. We've gone through this I have no problem with the Big Bang but many scientist did when they found out the sooner or later in is going to stop expanding and collapse on it self - like the Bible says - and they denied the mathematics because they could not open their mind. The only real preoblem I have with evolution is that it is the source of life. Did you follow that link that I posted? Did you see the complexity of the protein? That just happened? Or was it those fiunny words with letters mixed in that caused the problem. Once again you don't know what the Bible says and there are many historical events that correlate with the Bible. As far as the positive have come no where close to the negatives. Lets list is just this century the governments that did away with religion and than we can compare Russia between 25 and 60 million killed, Nazi Germany another 6, Cambodia another 3, China another 40 million, the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking 400,000 in one city up to 6 million total thats a total of minimum 80 millions people killed. So please don't try to make out that religion is evil.

Bullshit... Who's says I can't handle the concept of god. Fact is... I see no proof of god. Hell... I don't even need to see proof of "god", how about just something else that lends to possibility. Give me one hard thing, word for word, that was written in the bible that has come to fruition. No twisting or interpretation...word for word. I want place, time, and what happened.

I don't need science to coddle me. I don't need to be babysat by some higher power so I don't quiver in bed wondering what it's all about. I believe in what suits my world the best. I have no use for a higher power, so I'm not bound by all the things that come with such a belief system. I don't care how the world and/or life happened...that knowledge doesn't change my life in the slightest. If science has it wrong...cool...whatever. It's never been claimed as an obsolute, only a strong possibility. Whereas the religious side of the arguement has no flexibility...this is the way it happened. Somehow, I think my take on it is a little more open minded. However, you can believe whatever you like. That's the beauty of being on my side of the fence...we simply don't care. If you need to believe in something to make it through the day,...good for you, but don't claim those without your beliefs are the close minded ones. You're the one that's steadfast...not me.


So you're saying those deaths wouldn't have happened if the government was run by a priest...? ...I don't get it..? A desire to run their governments without religion clouding judgement, didn't cause those deaths, but a difference in religious beliefs did.

I don't ever recall saying that religion is evil. However I will say, those with differing religious beliefs have certainly, and factually, done more harm to each other than good.

SO you flunked history as well as biology!

Hitler was a christian, the holocaust had the blessing of the pope, and have you never heard of:

The Crusades?

The Inquisition?

You are really trying my patience.