dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu ; : No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science : says that something was always there. A small piece of that something : was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The : singularity ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 200

Thread: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

  1. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    : says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    : was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    : singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.
    :
    : It is a bit more complex than that, but that is a good start. Oddly
    : enough, as brilliant as he is, Hawking explains it all in a very
    : compelling and easy to understand manner, if you can put aside your
    : religious bent...

    He doesn't understand this, we're wasting our time.



  2. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    :
    : I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    : The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs

    Not this clown.



  3. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Sod this guy. *plonk*



  4. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    > : The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    > : plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    > : eco-system" simply becuase he could.
    >
    > "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
    >
    >



    Then from that reasoning God is it. Its much simpler than evolution.
    That in itself proves nothing.
    As you said earlier niether side will give at all to the other. except
    by the few on both sides that have open minds that do no feel threatened
    by the other nor go threating the other.
    That is what start wars Yes many wars have been started by religionists
    but most of those were started by ones wanting something others had and
    used religion as an excuse.
    Neither science or religion is any better than the man using them.
    caver1

  5. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    > : the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is
    > known.
    >
    > God punished Adam and Eve for eating from the tree of knowledge.
    >
    > "God" does not want you to know anything. He made it, and that's it!
    >
    > You can NOT get any more closed minded!
    >
    >



    That is a wrong interpretation by many religionists.
    It wasn't a tree of knowledge.
    It was the tree of knowledge of good and bad not all knowledge.
    I did not start this to get into religion just to show how extremists on
    both sides are wrong and usually from bad information.
    caver1

  6. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    > : says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    > : was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    > : singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.
    > :
    > : It is a bit more complex than that, but that is a good start. Oddly
    > : enough, as brilliant as he is, Hawking explains it all in a very
    > : compelling and easy to understand manner, if you can put aside your
    > : religious bent...
    >
    > He doesn't understand this, we're wasting our time.
    >
    >

    No it is you that are reading things into what I am saying.
    True I was over simplifying things as I really did not want to get into
    religion.
    Basically Quantum starts out with energy. The bible states that God is
    energy.
    The bible gives no clue as to how old the universe is. Most creationists
    try to give it a very short time frame.
    God does not say how he created things just that he did.
    What if everything science finds to be true was how God did it.
    Many creationist say God did say how he did it. He did not.
    Many that are totally against religion say that science proves the bible
    wrong. Yet the order of creation in the bible agrees with science.
    All science proves wrong are the close minded that want to interpret
    things their own way.
    Not all findings of science hold up to the test of time is why I said true.
    Man is intelligent but emotions tend to get into the way. To me any on
    either side that says that the other is totally wrong are fooling
    themselves. There are many on both sides that are wrong and they are
    usually the ones that refuses to consider anything the other states.
    This thread was about parental controls. I still cannot see how anyone
    can trust the upbringing of their children to someone they don't know.
    They should be doing those controls themselves.
    caver1

  7. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > :
    > : I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    > : The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    > :
    >
    > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs
    >
    > Not this clown.
    >
    >



    You also find scientists that falsify their findings to prove what they
    want.
    So are we to judge all scientists by them?
    caver1

  8. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    >
    >>> or
    >>> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.

    >>
    >> If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    >> The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    >> plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    >> eco-system" simply becuase he could.
    >>
    >> Still. Stranger things have happened. I once remember laughing at
    >> Bobby Davro, god bless my little laughing box.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Davro >

    >
    > Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    > exists?


    I didn't jump to *any* conclusions. I simply offered my opinion.

    > There are equally closed minds on both sides.


    Of course there are. There always has been and there always will be.
    Hell, even organised religions cannot agree on what "god" actually
    exists. How can anyone else be expected to have faith in a variety of
    deities? In fact, if an almighty deity does exist, then in which form?
    Which religion is right?

    > Both say that everything came from nothing.
    > Even Quantum mechanics.
    > Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    > to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    > Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    > It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    > neither side is free of that little mindedness.


    I'm not belittling anyones beliefs.

    As with all things, I really don't care what you or anyone else may or
    may not believe in. It is not of my concern. However, my opninions
    are, which is simply the thing I offered.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  9. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >: If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    >: The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    >: plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    >: eco-system" simply becuase he could.
    >
    > "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor


    Aah. The wonderful Occam's Razor.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  10. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Roy Strachan illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    >
    >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Davro >

    >
    > Looks like he was (has been) on the telly for quite some time, so
    > somebody must enjoy him. Does this mean you don't, or you don't have
    > a sense of humour? But I do agree with your big bang sentiment. )


    Heh. Yes. I do have a sense of humour, it's just not quite on the same
    wavelength as Mr. Davro's. ;-)

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  11. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Moog wrote:
    > caver1 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >>
    >>>> or
    >>>> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>>> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>>> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>>> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>>> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >>> If you want my opinion, and you probably don't, then I would say, YES.
    >>> The big bang, molecules and atoms forming life over time is the more
    >>> plausible explanation than some "bloke" who decided to "create an
    >>> eco-system" simply becuase he could.
    >>>
    >>> Still. Stranger things have happened. I once remember laughing at
    >>> Bobby Davro, god bless my little laughing box.
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Davro >

    >> Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    >> exists?

    >
    > I didn't jump to *any* conclusions. I simply offered my opinion.
    >
    >> There are equally closed minds on both sides.

    >
    > Of course there are. There always has been and there always will be.
    > Hell, even organised religions cannot agree on what "god" actually
    > exists. How can anyone else be expected to have faith in a variety of
    > deities? In fact, if an almighty deity does exist, then in which form?
    > Which religion is right?
    >
    >> Both say that everything came from nothing.
    >> Even Quantum mechanics.
    >> Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    >> to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    >> Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    >> It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    >> neither side is free of that little mindedness.

    >
    > I'm not belittling anyones beliefs.
    >
    > As with all things, I really don't care what you or anyone else may or
    > may not believe in. It is not of my concern. However, my opninions
    > are, which is simply the thing I offered.
    >



    Accepted with friendliness.
    caver1

  12. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Phil Stovell" wrote in message
    > newsan.2008.04.10.07.04.59.421372@stovell.org.uk...
    >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:50:42 +0000, Roy Strachan wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:07:45 +0100, Phil Stovell
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:45:11 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I have installed the Christian Parental Controls module
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm appalled.
    >>>>
    >>>> It'd be OK if there's also Jewish, Moslem and Atheist parental
    >>>> controls
    >>>> modules. Is there?
    >>>
    >>> Since most wars throughout history have been fought over religion and
    >>> very few, if any, fought over porn, I'm for blocking religious sites.

    >>
    >> Apart from this one: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

    >
    > quote from their "FAQ"
    >
    > "As I always say, it is not for us to question how the Lord gets his
    > kicks, but basically, unless your retarded, deaf, dumb and blind
    > sister finds some way of understanding that Jesus died for her sins,
    > and she miraculously finds the cognitive ability to accept Him as her
    > personal savior, she is going to roast in Hell along with all the
    > Catholics, child molesters, fornicators and mass murderers, not to
    > mention the aborted and miscarried fetuses, who were also never able
    > to comprehend Jesus and must therefore be tortured for eternity. "
    >
    > That is why religions are bad, people twist and distort "a bible" to
    > fit whatever their personal hates are.
    > Remember religion was invented by man not by God.



    You gotta be really careful here, Dennis.

    You are most correct in stating "religions" aren't something God
    invented. To the contrary, Jesus hated religion.

    However, my point is most people think the word "religion" covers
    everything and everybody. Using "religion" in a "loose" way can harm
    someone's idea of what a personal relationship with God really means.
    These people (actually, most of the world), do not (yet) know of what I
    speak.

    I have that personal relationship with God -- I am a "born-again
    Christian" as many would probably label me. But I hate religion. It is
    nothing but trouble as most have posted here in this, er, Ubuntu group.
    As you can see, even discussing "religion" starts problems. ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  13. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:


    > Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    > there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >
    > The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little minded.
    > Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many
    > have to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    > You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me
    > of havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I
    > believed in god or not.



    I certainly don't want to even take part in any silly debate on
    "religion," but I do want to point out that your comment about
    "Christian belief states that there was no beginning" is totally false.
    You obviously are trying to show some intelligence in the subject, but
    just are not yet up to speed with the true facts as opposed to opinion.

    You used and violated a prime example of your "close[d] minded and
    little minded" example here, as well as violating your own idea to keep
    your "beliefs" to yourself, and belittling the OP on his belief(s).

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  14. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    > : the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is
    > known.
    >
    > God punished Adam and Eve for eating from the tree of knowledge.
    >
    > "God" does not want you to know anything. He made it, and that's it!
    >
    > You can NOT get any more closed minded!



    Especially no more closed-minded than what you just spewed out!

    Your first sentence is somewhat correct. I say "somewhat" because you
    and I are also on "the list." We have "knowledge" but do not know how to
    correctly apply it.

    This "punishment" was not for eating some fruit, but for disobeying and
    not trusting God to provide for us. Doe's it not still happen in 2008?
    People openly stating they don't "need" any God, and they can do it
    themselves on their own power and smarts. Just look at this planet. Open
    your mind!

    Your second paragraph sounds like something obtained when someone was
    high on dope. Do you have a Bible reference to back up your ridiculous
    claim? Without a reference, your words have absolutely no foundation,
    except they are the rant of Cork Soaker, not even a valid name. Just
    please provide the documented reference(s) for your claim.

    Otherwise you completely fit your definition of your third paragraph.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  15. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > Sod this guy. *plonk*



    Is that how someone with an "open mind" responds?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  16. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Dogma Discharge wrote:
    > "Bruce Sinclair" wrote
    > in message news:ftjlvk$fm9$1@aioe.org...
    >
    >> In article , "Cork Soaker"
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>>
    >>> Yes they are.
    >>>

    >> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > It is indeed possible to have this, although I would go as far to say that
    > religious scientists have some serious internal issues to deal with. For
    > instance; I believe that Evolution directly conflicts with Genesis, and
    > seeing as it's (Evolution) an observed fact and known to be true, the book
    > of genesis is in some serious ****e.
    >



    There is no conflict that I see. You are free to believe whatever you
    want, but I'm curious: Where do you see it?


    > Religious beliefs = Self Delusions. Why delude ur kids, why keep them from
    > information? Far be it from me to give anyone advice on how to raise their
    > kids, but for Gods sake (snicker) at least give them a fighting chance and
    > let them have the truth, science is nothing but observed facts, religion is
    > based on nothing but faith, which of the 2 are you going to feed?



    I certainly wouldn't feed my children (or anyone) "religion."

    But I'd gladly provide scientific theory, and Bible-based theory, so
    they could make up their own mind what they wanted to BELIEVE by FAITH.

    That's inclusive too, and not "one or the other."


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  17. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>> The stsrt point is the same - faith.
    >>> Think about it.
    >>> In the beginning there was void, nothingness. Where did everything come
    >>> from? God made it.
    >>> or
    >>> In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>> was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>> where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>> faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>> They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.

    >>
    >> No, Science does not say that everything came from nothing. Science
    >> says that something was always there. A small piece of that something
    >> was a black hole. That black hole collapsed on it's singularity. The
    >> singularity exploded, and produced our known universe.

    >
    >
    > Basically the start point is the same. Christian belief states that
    > there was no beginning. So It depends on where you put your faith.
    >


    No, not true in the least. Christian belief states that the beginning
    is when God says it was. The 6 days of creation, and the day of rest.
    Before that, there was nothing but God, who was always there. That is
    a bit different.

    I do not accuse you of what you think I do, but I do accuse you of a
    lack of understanding, and in all probability, your understanding
    lacks on both sides of the aisle.

    You may want to take that as an insult, and you shouldn't. It is mere
    statement of what you present here. Perhaps you are trying to spread
    your argument too thin to try to make it work, but in reality, Science
    requires no faith. The entire foundation of religion is faith.
    Nowhere near the same thing.

    You are unlikely to tell me anything that will change that statement.
    I studied for 4 years at a Jesuit College. I spent a lot of time
    studying several religions, including the one that I participated in
    at the time (Catholosizm). I am a confirmed Catholic, and now I am an
    Atheist simply because of what I learned of religion. I am not a
    scientist (I am a computer geek at the core), but I do spend a bit of
    time reading the works of some of the better popular physicists out
    there, and have a slightly better than layman understanding from that
    angle, as well. I am not arguing with you to put down your ideas or
    beliefs, but simply to point out your mis-statements.

    >
    >> It is a bit more complex than that, but that is a good start. Oddly
    >> enough, as brilliant as he is, Hawking explains it all in a very
    >> compelling and easy to understand manner, if you can put aside your
    >> religious bent...
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > The point is many on Both sides are very close minded and little minded.
    > Instead of having your "beliefs" and leaving the others alone many have
    > to prove and belittle the other for their beliefs.
    > You can be considered one of those. I say that because you accuse me of
    > havind a religious bent and I never said or gave hint if I believed in
    > god or not.


    I accused you (personally) of nothing. Odd that you would read that
    into it. The "you" in that last sentence is collective, not personal.
    If any individual can listen to what Hawking says without applying
    their personal religious bent to it, they can see that what he is
    saying is pretty logical and almost even simple.

    You are free to have whatever religious beliefs you want. I just wish
    the religious would stop trying to push their myths on the rest of the
    world. In the first 21 years of my life, I was a Catholic. Not a
    single Atheist ever tried to convert me. For the past 15 years, I
    have been an Atheist. I cannot count the number of religious folks
    that have tried to put me on the proper path in that time.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  18. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    >>> exists?
    >>> There are equally closed minds on both sides.
    >>> Both say that everything came from nothing.
    >>> Even Quantum mechanics.
    >>> Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    >>> to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    >>> Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    >>> It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    >>> neither side is free of that little mindedness.

    >>
    >> No, science does not rely on faith, nor does it state that everything
    >> came from nothing. Science is a search. It starts with the
    >> understanding that we do not know everything, and works towards
    >> figuring out as much as we can in a search for knowledge.

    >
    >
    >
    > No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    > the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is known.
    >


    This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.
    They may try to fudge it a bit to fit more with reality by saying that
    God's 6 days are like millions to us, but they still use that story as
    the be all and end all. The "zealots" will claim that all of science
    is a lie and that the history of the world only encompasses the last
    6000 years...

    >
    >
    >> Religion starts out by assuming that we do know everything. Anything
    >> that we don't have a rational answer for, we just lump into "God made
    >> it", and whammo - simple explanation. The two are mutually exclusive,
    >> and only one of them is closed-minded.

    >
    > If you follow the what I call the non-zealot creationists,for lack of a
    > better term, They state that God did create everything but they do not
    > know how as God never said.


    They know exactly how. He waved his hands, and it was there. They
    have no thirst for further knowledge. God said "let there be light"
    and there was. The core of religion is faith in that myth, or others
    much like it for systems other than Jewish/Christian. The core of
    science is a thirst for understanding of those things that we do not
    know now.

    >
    >
    >> Hell, Science does not even insist that there is no "creator". That
    >> is always the possibility. It may just turn out that it is the
    >> eventual answer. The difference is that science will not get there
    >> without proof. For religion, no proof is needed, and no lack of proof
    >> will ever be enough to dissuade.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > But many anti religious, science faithful( for lack of a better term) do
    > say there was no creator.


    No, they do not. They say that there is no evidence of a creator.
    That is much different. It is impossible to prove a negative in the
    world of science. You cannot prove that something never existed.
    What you can do, though, is look for evidence of the positive, and
    report the lack thereof. It is true that to many in the world of
    Science, the religious are looked upon with comedic scorn. The reason
    is not that they are saying that there is no God. The reason is more
    that they find it amazing that someone would put the whole basis of
    their life on something that they have no evidence to show that it
    exists.

    > My point here is At this point there is no ultimate proof either way. So
    > any on either side can denigrate the other for their faith and this
    > discussion has proven a point that most on either side are very closed
    > minded.


    There can be no proof that there is no God (or anything else for that
    matter). Your view is wrong, though. You are calling people closed
    minded when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Their argument
    has always been that without proof, there is no point in belief.

    And let's face it, Religion has always made Science the enemy.
    Scientists have been burned as witches, excommunicated, imprisoned or
    tortured for saying things (with evidence) that didn't fit into the
    bible. When the Cjurch said that the Earth was the center of the
    Univers, Galileo was not treated very well for proving otherwise...

    Now how many scientists have tortured or killed Priests for having a
    different point of view?


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  19. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-04-09, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >>> In article , "Cork Soaker" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> : FWIW, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
    >>>> Yes they are.
    >>> I have known religious scientists. Yes, good ones.
    >>> The good ones keep the belief systems separate. It is possible.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Absolutely. It is possible to start out with a belief in God, then
    >> set out in search of proof. The only thing that would make them
    >> "good" scientists, though, is if they were willing to disregard their
    >> faith in a creator if such evidence came around that sufficiently
    >> proved a different truth. Most religious folks cannot do this.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Most "science believers" are the same way. If they find something that
    > may back up a religious belief the person to them is a Quack, or there
    > was something wrong with the science or whatever.
    > And those religious folk that cannot are close minded.


    Could you give a valid example of this? Has some evidence of God been
    found, and I am not aware?

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  20. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    On 2008-04-10, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >
    > "caver1" wrote in message
    > news:47fd375e$0$6155$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >: Cork Soaker wrote:
    >: > : In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >: > : was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >: > : where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >: > : faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >: > : They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >: >
    >: >
    >: > Haven't read much Quantum Theory have you?
    >: >
    >: >
    >:
    >:
    >: Even Quantum only goes back so far.
    >
    > You've pretty much proved my point there.
    >
    >


    Quantum theory is the study of the very small, caver. Quantum is
    exactly what describes the process that started the big bang. The
    problem scientists have had for quite some time is the transition.
    You have the theories of how atoms interact on the level of particles,
    which is much different than Relativity, which describes how objects
    interact in big-space.

    In recent years, the two theories have begun to be tied together into
    string theory. It is likely the end of the discussion. Once strings
    are fully understood, it is very possible that we will have a pretty
    complete understanding of how the univers started. Soon, CERN will be
    doing an experiment in which 2 particles will collide after a trip
    through a 14 mile long accelerator. When they hit, it is expected
    that they will produce a mini black hole, which will provide a lot of
    energy, and will also provide answers to a lot of these questions.

    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast