That sucks. First example has little to do with Christianity, second example is a disgrace.
You are fighting a straw man.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
how can you say the first has little to do with christianity? a man is using his christian beliefs as an excuse for sexually molesting his his childrengob bless krasher, you try hard but always seem to end up a little short - not a straw man argument, read the article you linked to, it explains what a straw man argument is
Lol - if you are referring to the given excuse of 'i was possesed by the devil' then you are not necessarily referring to Christian beliefs. Firstly, you don't have to be a Christian to use 'christian beliefs' in ur defence. Secondly, even Satanists believe in the devil. Might have been a Satanist for all you know, and Satanists and witches do a lot of raping of children - I don't know this from statistics, but from victims that I have talked to.It is a straw man argument. Most of the people defending science in this forum are fighting against a stereo type Christian that barely exists. The Straw Man.
I find satanism absolutely fascinating, i mean they obviously worship satan, who obviously is a christian concept, so by default they must also beleive that god exists, but wilfully choose to disregard him, and choose to worship gods enemy instead.is there an equivilent character in islam to satan ? apart from america.
that can't be right, it would just be called selfishism. i mean why label it satanism, if it has got no relation at all to satan.
Psyche. Why do you insist to base everything you have said in this thread on "what you think" or "what you know" instead of "what is".You think that humans will never find other lifeYou think that there are no other planets that can sustain usYou think that we were put on earth for a reason.You THINK you THINK you THINK.
Just try and base SOME of your argument on research, then MAYBE some people might start taking you seriously.
The way you present yourself makes you come across as some brainwashed hippie.
Hah, yeah, agree'd. You say to a christian "If you beleive in God, you must also acknowledge Satan." You then watch his/her face turn into something that can only be seen in an alternate dimension
I can't say that I KNOW because there is not a single person on this Earth that KNOW's the answer to those questions...
I do do plenty of research into various matters, just because I don't necessarily cite my source of information every single time doesn't mean my opinion or argument isn't based on research. When it comes down it, no amount of research in the world can even begin to explain the mysteries of life and the universe, and these are the things I am particulary more interested in discussing.
That's a load of shit and you know it :disappoin
I'll respond to your post later tonight aswell Ngati, haven't had a chance...
Ok, lets not get too agreeable, this thread might become tolerable.
Come now, don't let RL get in the way :bounce:I disagree. This thread cannot get tolerable
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=450467&in_page_id=196510 second google search....
Gliese 581 c is OUTSIDE the habitable zone No direct evidence has been found for water (an important abundant molecule) to be present, but it is likely not present due to the extremely high irridance at perihelion (see Temperature). Techniques like the one used to measure HD 209458 b may in the future be used to determine the presence of water in the form of vapor in the planet's atmosphere, but only in the rare case of a planet with an orbit aligned so as to transit its star, which Gliese 581 c is not known to do.
And if their is another planet like ours, with the same climate, water and gravity, then there is nothing stopping that planet being the home to some sort of life-form. I'm constantly hearing about new, habitable planets being discovered through the News.
Again, you have passed up ACTUAL findings and gone with what YOU THINK.
Well, without displaying where you got your info from, then me or anyone else has no other option to think that they are your own words, your "ideas".
And again, you say "When it comes down it, no amount of research in the world can even begin to explain the mysteries of life and the universe". How the hell do you know that ? Are you going to be around in the next 500yrs ? Do you somehow know what man will be capable of through your power of "this is what i think, therefor it is".
Haha, no, i honestly said that because that's how you come across. I wouldn't of said it if i didn't believe it.
The problem I see with constantly citing scientific research and other 'discoveries' is that, how do you know your source is credible? How do you know they didn't make a mistake, or were mislead, or are trying to force their owns views on you? A lot of science is theory, not fact. There are some scientists who vehemently claim to know the precise age of the Earth, through the study of rocks and other minerals. The problem is their methods of examination aren't necessarily 100% accurate - the tools they use for 'dating' are flawed, and cannot predict the age of something past a certain amount of time, despite their claims that they can merely because it fits in with their explanation of evolution. This is just one example.So I am inclined to not always take every bit of information I read on the internet or elsewhere at face value, and I am happy that I have the ability to think for myself and develop my own ideas rather than relying constantly on everything someone else says. If I am discussing something based on something I have read I don't feel the need to always cite my source of information unless I deem it necessary, why should I? Just to please you? No-one else links to their source of information every time they mention something, why the hell should I? Man's ability to think for himself is one of the greatest gifts we have, so I don't understand why you would want to insult me for using this ability..
I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that. I think this, i think that.
No, you're an idiot. Why should I have to link to a source everytime I say something? I have to go out and find exactly where I read every bit of information everytime I mention something? That would be a major pain in the ass and no-one else does it for obvious reasons, so why should I have toI may not be 100% correct about the carbon dating thing but from what I have read, no their results are not completely accurate,this would confirm it (assuming this source is credible) obviously it's out of my area of expertise so I can't say anything for sure but my point was not everything scientific is always as accurate as what they make it out to be, due to human error, limits of technology, ect ect. hence why I don't take EVERYTHING I read on the internet or some news article at face valuePS. eat a dick ginga-fro
now I can see why you call yourself Retardo...
It's a debate, you have to freaking provide sources or you lose. Ever watched or taken part in a debate before ? Probably not.
Oh, and btw, i think you can remove yourself from this thread now. The instant you start slinging insults in the form of gutless remarks like that then you instantly relinquish any intelligent upper hand you may of had, either it be with your opponent or the people viewing/reading.
when it's just another planet
then yes I would probably rather not be involved in this thread.