guess where i am?
.
i've posted this dunig the watchtower study at the hall using a mobile phone and a pocket pc - only a few strange looks from the people sat near.. i'll be glad when its time to go home - its' as boring as ever !
Guess it won't be too long now before we get something in the KM about not bringing pc's into the hall!
- Frenchy
Hahahahaha, oh Frenchy, if only you knew. Now you get in trouble if you don't bring your "pc" with you.
Though, it looks like Simon might have been the first to post on here from the KH.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Wow Prologos, way to completely pull that out of your a$$. There is equal amounts of positive and negative energy in our universe. A pound of butter minus a pound of butter does NOT equal two. It equals zero. Here's something light to read on the topic: http://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
If you want something a little more in depth I recomend this lecture by Krauss (starts at 12:50):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzbU0bGOdc
To the question EndofMysteries raised, the First Law of Thermodynamics only address' energy changing from one state to another state. It says nothing about the origins or "creation" of that energy.
More to the point, just because things in the universe follow certain laws doesn't mean the universe as a whole must follow those laws. The property of parts of a system don't always behave in the same way the entire system does. For example, just because airplane seats can't fly doesn't mean airplanes can't fly. Just because all sheep in the flock have a mother - it doesn't mean that the flock must then have a mother. For more on this, please see Fallacy of Composition.
crofty can you please break this article and main points down for the average individuals to understand, i found this article and thought of you, thought you might be interested in this topic too.
i don't fully understand it, can you please help us, you are our "resident expert" on this topic!
will you please break it down for us as to what it means and how it affects us brains?
It's just a sensationalist attention grabbing headline and nothing more. Even if the conclusions from the data were true - that 38% of agnostics were believers - it still doesn't get you anywhere near "atheist might not exist". However, the far larger crime is that this article is blatantly committing the fallacy of false equivocation. An "atheist" is someone who lacks a belief in God. You can be an atheist and still be "spiritual". You can be an atheist and still believe in predetermination. You can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. None of these are exclusive propositions to atheism.
In regards to "INTERNAL MONOLOGUES" they author is merely describing decoupled cognition. This has nothing to do with a belief in God or in the supernatural. It's a process of meta awareness that allows us to bounce our ideas off of an imagined third party. Most of the time people imagine what dad or mom would say or someone whose opinion they respect.
As for "EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSES" Sam Harris has written on this extensively about the importance of ritual and special words for special occasions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLKNvBdUtZY
I think mostly what is happening with this article is they are addressing the "nones" (people who don't belong to a religion) as though they are agnostics. This simple isn't the case. The majority of nones have a belief in God. It truly is just a poorly written article all the way around.
Here's a much more informed article upon the topic: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/03/13/none-atheist-christian-evangelical-pew/
not too much reporting on this story but several known news agencies if you google it.
this titanium metal orb, the size of a human hair was found and having bio matter oozing out of it.
there is a pic on some of the sites.
Pretty cool story. And not a hoax at all. Both the people mentioned in the article, Chandra Wickramasinghe and Milton Wainwright, are real scientists who are working to try and prove their hypothesis of panspermia using the scientific method (unlike most the idiots on the History Channel).
That said, it has NOT been confirmed that this is organic material nor that it is of alien origin. The standard of evidence for proving the existence of alien life is going to be very high. I personally am going to withhold judgment until they publish a peer reviewed scientific paper on their findings. And even then, I will continue to be highly skeptical until a group of outside researchers is able to look at the material and reach similar conclusions.
All my caveats aside, it would be awesome if we find out this is actually alien life! SETI and NASA would surely get a huge bump in their funding.
some years ago (the year when i got baptized), i was at a district convention (or whatever they call them these days) with my best friend.
he had a part in one of those acting parts at the convention (i have no idea the term jw's use for them in english).
anyway, we were both seeing through the bullshit of the borg but weren't aware at the time of this forum or other "apostate" groups, nor of the full extent of the perversity of this religion.
i recently heard a story from a jw about stupid scientists.
there was an awake article about archeaologist who found an ancient piece of art.
it was sent to a university for dating.
This story is bogus. Those who submitted the sample were specifically warned that they were dating the organic material on the pottery and NOT the pottery itself.
"We dated the organic material on the stone but warned the submitter that the date had no meaning until this material had been identified. This was never done, and yet they still publicized the date which of course provides no information of the actual date at which the stone was painted."
- Professor Michael Tite, Director of the Oxford Laboratory
This reminds me of the time Ken Ham sent in a dinosaur fossil to be carbon dated. He then went around telling everyone how it came back as only being a few thousand years old. Of course, the one part of the story he didn't reveal was that the company that dated the fossil told him that fossils contained no carbon and that what they dated was the varnish that had been put on it later to protect it.
Anytime you hear someone make quotes about carbon dating fossils, diamonds, pottery, metal, etc. it should set off your BS meter. Carbon dating is ONLY used to date organic material. For other materials there are other dating methods. Furthermore, scientists generally use two different dating methods or more when identifying the ages of things. Because when you have two or more dating methods converging on the same date you can have an extremely high degree of confidence that date is correct.
Carbon dating is a specific tool for a specific kind of material. Carbon dating a fossil or a piece of pottery and then concluding "c14 dating is inaccurate" would be like trying to use a hammer to mow your lawn and then concluding "hammers aren't very good tools."
film: a young man is given a powerful sword by a wise old man so that he can save the princess and defeat an evil sorcerer.
at the end of the film he saves all his friends but isn't able to defeat the sorcerer.
which film is it?.
i really think that he is.
not that it's a bad thing...
film: a young man is given a powerful sword by a wise old man so that he can save the princess and defeat an evil sorcerer.
at the end of the film he saves all his friends but isn't able to defeat the sorcerer.
which film is it?.
Film: A young man is given a powerful sword by a wise old man so that he can save the princess and defeat an evil sorcerer. At the end of the film he saves all his friends but isn't able to defeat the sorcerer. Which film is it?
Hint: It's not a Disney movie. Nor is it widely considered to be a fantasy film (even though it is).
to start off with let me clarify that by asshole atheism i am not referring to strong atheism or any other type of upfront atheism.
what i am referring to is the belligerent, hateful atheism that smacks of trolls and other types who want to derail conversation or comments at any cost..
i enjoy hearing comments from both sides of the subjects of theism, nationalism or politics, especially from those who have intense opinions.
