Well that proves it then
-
you have forgotton a major point. You can't educate pork
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
But if you smoke it up real good, it becomes bacon...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
But if you smoke it up real good, it becomes bacon...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
which is no harder to educate mmmm bacon
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
But if you smoke it up real good, it becomes bacon...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Now I'm hungry.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Now I'm hungry.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
mmm fried bacon grill sarnies with hp sauce yummie
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
mmm fried bacon grill sarnies with hp sauce yummie
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Stop it. I'm going to have to get another breakfast if you guys keep going...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Stop it. I'm going to have to get another breakfast if you guys keep going...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
You could argue that bacon proves [insert deity of choice here] exists
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
And when someone rational gives an honest answer and says, "I don't know", you'll just consider it another triumphant success for the "logical" argument for an intelligent creator. What is silly about this is that a truly logical mind will say, "Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer." The religionist will say, "To hell with research. We KNOW the answer. We don't have to PROVE the answer or TEST the answer, we just know. Again... To hell with science."
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer.
"And keep doing it forever till people get frustrated and do not ask anymore, or until we can convince them that everything around us came from nothing."
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Let's go and figure out the origins of the red and yellow sand as best we can. Let's test these theories and use test results to discover the answer.
"And keep doing it forever till people get frustrated and do not ask anymore, or until we can convince them that everything around us came from nothing."
That's the joy of it. There is always room for more knowledge in research. It's always better never to stop asking.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Yes
Yes, you can tell me what a translation of the Hebrew version of Exodus actually says?
ryanb31 wrote:
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
And that is how it should have been translated? Twaddle. The original Hebrew clearly refers to Yahweh hardening Pharoah's heart. So, other than using 'the LORD', rather than Yahweh or Jehovah, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" is a correct translation.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Yes
Yes, you can tell me what a translation of the Hebrew version of Exodus actually says?
ryanb31 wrote:
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
And that is how it should have been translated? Twaddle. The original Hebrew clearly refers to Yahweh hardening Pharoah's heart. So, other than using 'the LORD', rather than Yahweh or Jehovah, "the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart" is a correct translation.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Nice try.
Yes, I thought so. I was pleased to be able to expose your ignorance in all its sad entirety.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But some of the plain and precious truths have been removed, even some of them were removed intentionally. For example, the King James version says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart after each of the plagues by Moses. That can't be true because it contradicts all of the other teaching of the Lord's.
ryanb31 wrote:
That isn't the original text.
So what. Yaweh hardens Pharaoh's heart. Whether at the beginning or at the end of a plague is irrelevant. Indeed, Yahweh makes it clear up front that that Moses and Aaron will be speakin' to da hand, cos da heart ain't lisnin. 2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land. 3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 But Pharaoh will not hearken unto you, and I will lay My hand upon Egypt, and bring forth My hosts, My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt, by great judgements. Hey, that Yahweh is one cruel dude. He gonna make Pharoah say 'No!' jus' so as he can whup Egypt some more.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
jschell wrote:
You obviously have no idea how science nor even logic works then.
A calculated theory is not an assumption. It is a starting point whereby research begins. That is how logical processes start.
jschell wrote:
You can't prove anything without assumptions.
Correct. It is a good thing that science uses thoughtfully calculated theories based on observation to begin researching and testing and not assumptions.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
A calculated theory is not an assumption. It is a starting point whereby research begins. That is how logical processes start.
Did you ever take any advanced math classes? A theory STARTS with assumptions and then expresses some idea based on those.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Correct. It is a good thing that science uses thoughtfully calculated theories based on observation to begin researching and testing and not assumptions.
The formulation of all theories rests on a foundation that either directly or indirectly leads back to assumptions. As an example the theorem that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees has the following assumptions in it (there are others.) - The proof is in euclidean space - Parallel lines do not intersect.
-
jschell wrote:
First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven.
So in order to "believe" these things in science, you are placing the burden of proof on the scientist to provide. Why is it, that you cannot be held to the same standard with regards to your belief. Not to convince me, but to be honest with yourself regarding it.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
So in order to "believe" these things in science, you are placing the burden of proof on the scientist to provide.
No idea what you are talking about. But as a guess I understand what an assumption is. I did not ask nor do I require that anyone prove them. That however doesn't alter that they are assumptions. And as far as I can tell from discussing belief systems with people over the years those with a strong belief in science are seldom able to actually grasp what an assumption really is nor to see what their personal view is. Given that my science education made the notion of assumptions very explicit it makes me wonder whether others were not taught the same or just failed to grasp the concept. Or perhaps humans have a need to believe absolutely in something and I personally do not have that strong of a need.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Why is it, that you cannot be held to the same standard with regards to your belief.
What I said has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Or at least only relating to those of logic, science and human psychology related to belief systems. Not sure even what you think you were conveying. Perhaps if you expand on it I could comment on it.
-
jschell wrote:
The fact that a god is all knowing says absolutely nothing about why such a god would take any single or group of actions.
And the very assumption of an all knowing god suggests implicitly that such a god could very well have 'reasons' for any action which is in fact impossible for a human to comprehend.And you call my statement utter nonsense. This comment is nothing more than an apologetic cop out.
jschell wrote:
If one believes that the bible does in fact have some meaning then the belief itself is the starting point of all that follows. It isn't circular. And even if it were as a belief it is allowed to be just that.
Let's try that one out.... 1) Believe in the bible. Why? 2) Because the bible says I should. Why? 3) Because the bible is the perfect word of god. Why? 4) Because the bible says so. 5) So I'll believe in the bible. Why? ... That's not circular reasoning at all. My apologies... :doh:
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
And you call my statement utter nonsense. This comment is nothing more than an apologetic cop out.
Which only demonstrates that you didn't read what I wrote. Since it seems so hard for you and others to separate logic from belief (what you presume of me) perhaps it would help if I made it clear. I do not believe in God. Now based on your new understanding of what my personal beliefs are perhaps you might want to look at your statement again to explain what exactly you think was "apologetic".
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Let's try that one out....
- Believe in the bible. Why?
- Because the bible says I should. Why?
- Because the bible is the perfect word of god. Why?
- Because the bible says so.
- So I'll believe in the bible. Why?
To start with you don't to seem to understand what a belief is. There is no "why" on the first statement. It is an unquestioned statement. If there is a question then it is not in fact a belief. So rephrasing your argument. 1) Believe in the bible. This is a belief. 2) Because the bible says I should. Why? Because of 1 3) Because the bible is the perfect word of god. Why? Because of 1. 4) Because the bible says so. Obviously. 5) So I'll believe in the bible. Why? Absolutely wrong. 5 is not a conclusion. It is a restatement of 1, which was already stated as belief. Affirmation of 1 is not needed because it is a belief.