assassin_696

Are you saying someone shouldn't have the right to question and challenge the faith of millions?

Oh boy...

I'm going to lock both your topics. Feel free to repost a new one with only one post for the page with some actual content. Since both your topics are currently very incomplete, it'd be much better if you actually posted when you had something to post. Locked.

[hide] Yes but as i mentioned, usually from large galaxies pulling all matter towards itself... Yes the universe is expanding in all directions, but if there was a big bang, it came from a singularity so there has to be one point from where all the expansion began, even though it might not be the point from where expansion continues. Am I right? Baron, space on a large scale contains something, whether it be galaxies or dark matter, this void contains nothing at all. Space on a small scale is as you said just empty space, but completely different on a large scale. See my post, the concept of a "centre of the universe" is false. It's misleading to compare it to an explosion from a single point in space, since the Universe is space. And what if the universe is just one of many of larger spaces... [/hide] Who knows? Maybe the same principle would apply to the expanding conglomeration of "bubble universes". But I really don't know. I'm still curious as to what they mean by empty space, because even in an absolute vacuum you still get random vacuum fluctuations. And I just had to add this comment I saw on another website re. the article: They haven't met my ex-girlfriend. :lol:

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself? To perhaps add to what Satenza said, even then there is still a dilemna. Because as a Christian, are you moral because God instilled in us all an innate sense or morality? Or because he's telling you to be moral. The former would seem highly unlikely, given that evidence shows morality in children is almost entirely a product of upbringing, and the latter I would argue isn't being truthfully moral. Being good just because God is telling you to is plain subservience, why not be good for the good of humankind? Why not be good simply to be good, and to do no harm? Ah, but that's why i'm moral. I don't need an absolute source to know why I shouldn't do this or that, yet my morals are similar. You may claim an absolute source but as Satenza has pointed out, that's just as subjective as my morals. I'm not a moral relativist. I don't think murder, or rape, or torture can be justified under relative terms. Rather, i'm a consequentialist, a utilitarianist or whatever else you want to call it. I don't see why that should not apply to anyone else really. I don't make claims to the absolute truth, rather I judge actions by their effects, consequences and what fits in with my own ethics. But we digress.

I don't think lacking an absolute sense of where your morality comes from makes you a moral relativist anyway.

Bari, if you're looking for some kind of absolute proof for a scientific theory, then you're not going to find it. Scientific theories are falsifiable, that means that evolution will never be proven to such a degree that we can dust it under the carpet and say "that's it, we don't have to worry about that again". But there is probably more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory. Microscopic evolution has been astonishly well proven and tested, macroscopic evolution is harder to prove because of the time scales involved, but it's still very well accepted among the experts. warri0r also didn't pull that figure out of any orifice. 99% of biologists (which let's face it, is the relevant field when it comes to that kind of thing) know evolution to be a fact. 99% might be a bit high if you lump in computer scientists and social scientists, but 99% of scientists in the relevant field believe in evolution. Anyway, if you want evidence, i'm not as good as warri0r as quoting selected websites. If you really think you have something against evolution or are interested you should be able to look it up yourself. But here is an excellent index of claims of people who are against evolution or pro-intelligent design. I'm sure you'll find a lot of your questions answered there, as well as more than enough proof for you. Oh, and more than enough proof for you. Also, see my Dennett quote in regards to being ignorant of evolution.

Yes but as i mentioned, usually from large galaxies pulling all matter towards itself... Yes the universe is expanding in all directions, but if there was a big bang, it came from a singularity so there has to be one point from where all the expansion began, even though it might not be the point from where expansion continues. Am I right? Baron, space on a large scale contains something, whether it be galaxies or dark matter, this void contains nothing at all. Space on a small scale is as you said just empty space, but completely different on a large scale. See my post, the concept of a "centre of the universe" is false. It's misleading to compare it to an explosion from a single point in space, since the Universe is space.

It's an update that's been done, so this topic is pointless. Locked.

Layla - Derek and the Dominos Clapton's masterpiece

del, I swear i've never seen someone play up to a stereotype of himself so much before in my life, but trust me when you're facing a gang of juvenile kids with knives you give them whatever the hell they want. That's just common sense. In the papers in the UK recently there've been loads of reports of fatal stabbings and shootings of kids, often very young. Krav maga is probably the best martial art to defend yourself against knife attacks but even then most experts wouldn't ever take on a knife attack unless they had to. Knife attacks get messy, fast.

Well for a start, all the creationists claims of irreducible complexity are false. See in particular this index of creationist claims and the things they claim are irreducibly complex. But as warri0r said, any kind of 'science' which sticks in an untestable, unmeasurable higher power is completely unfalsifiable because you can simple tweak the higher power to fit whatever facts are presented. Since it's not falsifiable, it's not a scientific theory.

Please use the introduction sticky at the top of the page for introducing yourself to Tip.It.

Correct, the current Big Bang model has the Universe a bit like an expanding balloon. There is no preferred centre of the expansion.

This is quite amusing, watching the diehard creationists completely ignore the facts being presented to them and bleating "... but it's just a theory". Enough people here have already tackled the science behind creationism (or lack of) well enough, i'll just add to the whole "teach the controversy" point of view. If we teach the controversy in every area of science or learning we'd confuse kids no end. Some people think that the holocaust never happened. Should we teach that in history? There is a Ph.D physicist who genuinely believes that the Sun goes round the Earth, should we teach that? Or what about the wonderful Flat Earth society? I suppose for balance we should add that as well. See where i'm going with this? I'll finish off with a favourite quote that I read a while ago:

I'll err...move this to M&M, since it's mostly about music. Leonard Cohen's knocked out some depressing tunes in his time, check some of them out. Oh yeah and my bedroom (i've got a digital thermometer in there) is normally 18 degrees Celsius during the day and 20 at night.

Well I can't see this going anywhere. :? Locked

Ack, don't bring the law into it. I think the law does a really bad job of outlining moral actions, unless you're a consequentialist. Even then, the law doesn't forbid things like cheating on your wife. Cheating on your wife with another partner that consents to it is lawful, and consentful, but I really wouldn't call it moral. What would you say about that situation? Duty to your wife outweighs the law and consent in this case? If so, what is your basis for that claim? How does one outweigh the other? I meant to say I agree with the law, not that it necessarily influences my morals or ethics. In regards to the case of adultery, hopefully my statement above has cleared that up, obviously i'm against adultery, it's an immoral act. I don't really think it should be made illegal, but generally when you get married you make a verbal contract with each other that you'll remain faithful, I think the consequences of breaking that and losing the trust of your partner if found out are probably punishment enough. But anyway, I wouldn't try and defend adultery for a second based on consent. Perhaps the loophole for me is that the wife (or even husband) doesn't consent to the adultery of the other partner. :P I know you're questioning my ethics, pushing them and testing them with regards to what I say, and you're doing it pretty well and making me think hard. But before you continue, i'd just like to point out that i'm still forming opinions and reasons for my views on topics, and i'm likely to squirm and/or change them as suits me. I wouldn't base all my ethics on consent, or consequentialism, or utilitarianism per se. Rather, I have my own sense of what's right and wrong, and my justifications are still being worked out. It may seem odd, but it's just how my brain functions. Perhaps my own sense of right and wrong was imposed on me at a younger age based on a specific ethical system, but the specific justifications for it are more ambiguous.

Moved it to the other Archive of Wisdom forum, where it's probably better suited. :)

Dude, seriously, the exact same game is on the front page here. :P Locked.

SPAM :x Locked

Similar game here. Locked.

I don't think it's quite right to say that gaining consent therefore makes something right, or the corollary. And I hope that's not how my ethics comes across. Eating meat is a natural act that has obvious dietary advantages. Bestiality has no real advantages except pleasuring the human committing the act. I think consent plays an important part when it comes to sexual acts. I didn't mean consent should play a part with relation to other ethics. But the law treats consent as an important part of sexual acts, and so do I. Hence my reasoning.

Locking this, you've already got a similar thread.

...the sticky! the STICKY! :P Locked.