insane

Ever heard of free will? Ever heard of free will?

You can't describe Materialistic behaviour with theistic belief. The fact that flood was physical means that it can be explained as some sort of physical phenomena so was hasn't any scientifically verifiable explanation been put forth for testing? Eh, I agree with you here, to an extent. My point was, if God can create a universe, he can create a flood. It's personal vs. scientific cause, I think. God being the personal cause for the creation of the universe, and science explaining the methods behind it. So I'd be perfectly okay with you saying the above things, because, IMO it's indirectly (or maybe directly, who knows) true. Except for the part where God *is* lightning. I'd say he created lightning when he created the universe, he didn't become lightning... I'd also be perfectly okay with you using the Big Bang Theory and evolution (to an extent here, I'm still not a fan of evolution - though you call gravity a theory as well, we've had much more data to gravity, as I observe it in every move I make - I don't really observe evolution all that much - Unless I'm directly looking for it, and then maybe I'd end seeing things because I want to) as means for how the universe was created, as long as you don't bring in the "who" using science. Wasn't Michael Behe's book more about disproving evolution's certainty using irreducible complexity than about his belief in a Christian God? Seems like a straw man to me.

Well, whatever happens, it can't be worse than the origianl CoN movies... *shudders*

I prefer the Atari's version of Boys of Summer... When compared to Don Henley's version, DH's version seems 15 mins long...

Of course you won't like this idea - but if the account is true that a flood happened, wouldn't it make sense that God caused the water to come into existence?... clearly I think the creator of this UNIVERSE can cause some WATER to come into existence at will - and therefore science doesn't need to be used to account for this.

Oh I completely agree, I wasn't looking into practical conclusion :) and I don't think he was either.

You missed the point again. He's speaking theoretically.

This is where it's all coming from. More or less I was calling MPC on calling a very intelligent poster stupid. That's where it came from... when he persisted, I asked him to show where BlueTear was being "stupid"... so of course I brought it up, because it's how this all started. Terms like generalization and overgeneralization confuse me. Here's what I see in simple terms: You: She could've had a gun (I agree)... tase her before anything happens (I agree). BlueTear: She could've had something worse than a gun... do what is necessary in this case... BlueTear is ONLY showing you how far it can be taken... she *could* have had something worse than a gun! Why not act on that?! Why doesn't it apply? Are you saying she couldn't have had worse than a gun? That's quite a presumption. I'm pretty sure the people who have worse than guns directly disobey policemen's orders as well. And speed. It fits the situation.

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim. Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner. It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God. Ya but your thinking physical, god is sappoused to be spiritual, is it not? It's really irrelevant to the point he's trying to prove. He's saying that if you can establish the existence of God, then you don't need to know all of reality to prove it, because you've already shown God to exist. However to show God *not* to exist - then you need to show *everywhere* God is not. Get it? There He is! Stop searching. There He isn't, keep going until you've searched everything.

Please post on the appropriate forum ;)

So he brings up many situations, while you bring up one, assume it's the case, and then act on it... Exactly, BlueTear just took that one step further - basically his logic is asking the question, where do we stop? Sure she could have had a gun, but it's also possible she had worse than a gun. So why assume the gun? I'm not expresing views on whether or not the cop is in the right/wrong - I'm more trying to defend someone calling someone else stupid, with no reasons to do so, and when asked to provide reasoning, side stepped the question.

Of course, of course. I forgot, you can't reason with the illogical. Clearly, he is being stupid, because you gave so much logical proof for that... Take a lesson from your brother in how to argue...

On the other hand... There's no way of knowing if her car is packed with C4 or Semtex. In fact, since there *might* be explosives hidden in her glove compartment, her purse, strapped to her person, beneath the floorboard, inside the engine. There could be IED's camoflauged as cups in her cup holder! Oh no! Call in the SWAT, clear the road and take her out with a sniper! In fact, anyone speeding *MAY* be transporting explosives to be used in terrorist acts, so we should just blow them up! ... Ridicolous argument. There are cases when shooting first, asking questions later is warranted, and this may very well be a case like that (I mean, cellphone, sheesh?) but c'mon, you can motivate any number of strange and brutal methods by saying "Well, she *might* have...". ("Hey, they *might* have WMD's! Nuke!") I'm not even going to respond to your stupidity....just read my above post. I still stand by everything I said...totally ignored. Of course you won't respond, because there's no stupidity to respond to. BlueTear gave a perfect counterexample USING YOUR LOGIC.

Thirded. (if everyone made a topic like this...)

Nah... I see a movie as much as a social thing as a "movie" thing. Afterwards I'd feel weird just going home or something...

I dunno about HP... the movies are so blah in comparison to the books... this one looks like it'll be better than the last ones... I guess I'll see it if other people I know are going...

You're mixed up. Function is of course important, I couldn't care less about style... that's why I said *style* is a non-issue.

A Fender Concert Series Acoustic.

Ooh-kay... so my friend randomly came down from uni this weekend, and he has a hottub... so we kinda went into that instead after bowling ;) and we watched half-an hour of hitch - it was a new release, same sort of concept as high fidelity - you steered me in the right direction, even though we didn't watch the whole thing.

My friend found death cab before they got popular because of PV, we found alot of awesome music because he browser PV so much... on the other hand, there's bands like hardcore warrior that make me question the future of the site... btw, hardcore warrior lives in my city ;P

The Get Up Kids, the New Amsterdams, Postal Service, and Death Cab for Cutie (all albums before Plans were not with a major label ;))

Ryan... just click + drag highlight the text. That makes it white and blue and very easy to read, with minimal effort on your part. I use subBlack and that's what I do.

Anyone have this album? I think it's some of the "smartest" music ever.

It's tough, because the keys digital pianos hit softer... on an acoustic, you get the "thud" when you know you've pressed the note down, on a digital, you don't really get that... I dont' like it. One thing to keep in mind is moving costs - an acoustic would take 4 men and a few hours to get into your room...

[/thread]