3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 12/12/06 02:18 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Religious people are ALL hypocrites.
I mean, would anyone join a religion if it wasn't for the "eternal life" feature?
I guaranteed you that if you belived that you would gain eternal life by being athiest rather than religious, there wouldn't be any religious people.
I don't think deists believe in an afterlife, but I could be wrong.
At 12/11/06 01:07 PM, RedGlare wrote:At 12/11/06 02:22 AM, Peter-II wrote: Alright, let me go through your post.Your point being?
Well if there your Aces i seriously wouldn't bother i mean the Big Bang is just a theory ,a good theory but still a theory.First error: you don't knock him down on the fact that the big bang doesn't disprove the existence of God at all,
given the fact that if somthing did disprove God we wouldn't be having this debate in the First place. Plus the fact that i said that they weren't good arguements imply's they don't.
He said that the big bang disproves God. You might as well have just taken the easy path and said that it doesn't.
I see and the true term is?
The true term IS theory. You just seem to have a bad idea of what a theory is in terms of Science.
given that ive not seen proof that the big bang did happen its still just an idea. Unless there is proof in which case please share.
There's a lot of proof.
-The big bang model predicts the expansion of the universe, and the universe is expanding. Redshift, etc.
-The big bang model predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is existential.
-Abundance of light elements
-Galactic distribution of the universe
-etc.
If all your going to do is criticise me for not stating my points the way you want then fuck you.
If you seriously think that saying "the big bang theory is just a theory" then you have a lot of catching up to do.
Which came from?
Primeval oceans?
Im sorry but what? your slagging me off because you don't think i believe what i wright.
I'm slagging you off because you sound like you're using the argument just because it's convenient for you at this very moment.
Besides does it matter whether or not i believe it myself? no your just being nosey seriously it makes no difference what so ever whether i do or don't.
Well if you don't, then you shouldn't be using that argument.
I don't think you don't believe it yourself, I just think you haven't put that much thought into it.
Well lets see now the very building blocks of all matter and energy is atoms yes?
Actually, the building blocks of all matter are fermions, and the building blocks of all energy are bosons.
if so then realisticly they must be one of the earlist stages of universly development and the arguement that they can't be destroyed etc is an arguement i've heard manytimes but not in detail.
Look it up yourself if you care so much. Im not your wet nurse.
Alright, let me go through your post.
Well if there your Aces i seriously wouldn't bother i mean the Big Bang is just a theory ,a good theory but still a theory.
First error: you don't knock him down on the fact that the big bang doesn't disprove the existence of God at all, and instead do the bitch "oh it's just a theory" defense. This argument shows a serious misunderstanding of the term "theory", but that's it.
And evolution well there is the arguement of where did the very frist stage of life come from?
Self reproducing RNA molecules?
And the whole Evolution guided by God. It may sound weak but is impossible to prove/disprove.
You aren't sounding very convincing here. It actually sounds like you've carefully rehearsed this from other people, yet don't believe that stuff yourself, and just use those arguments because it's convenient for you.
Besides i still say that Thomas Acquinas arguement of first cuase is the best explanation of creation. And that it points to some creater force. I mean like evolution if the entire universe was created by anything physical like just one atom then what created that.
Aquinas' version of the cosmological argument is pure shite. It only works if you assume God to be completely different in the first place.
i mean there is that arguement that atoms can't really be created/destroyed but then how did they get there in the first place and what altered them into kickstarting the universe?
Who says atoms can't be created / destroyed? Who says they kickstarted the universe???
At 12/10/06 02:15 PM, Residue wrote:At 12/9/06 09:25 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: I got proof. Its called evolution and the big bang. And the simple fact that i dought that noah on the ark could hold 5,000 species of mammals.Technically all three are theories, you can't prove any of them. You are an idiot.
Shut the fuck up!
What the hell is wrong with you people?!
At 12/9/06 04:27 PM, RedGlare wrote:
No, just no. You don't know anything about anything.
At 12/9/06 11:51 AM, cold-as-hell wrote:At 12/9/06 10:40 AM, Peter-II wrote:thats my best argument aganst godAt 12/9/06 09:25 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: I got proof. Its called evolution and the big bang.What the hell are you talking about?
Well they aren't very good arguments.
You could at least elaborate and cite the poor design argument, or the appeal to insignificance.
At 12/9/06 09:25 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: I got proof. Its called evolution and the big bang.
What the hell are you talking about?
At 12/9/06 04:23 AM, AFAR wrote: ..... illegal pot is the gateway to gangs, crime, and harder drugs for most people, legalization of pot would completely knock out the pillars of organized crime......
WHAT?!
You're seriously not going by this the right way kid.
At 12/3/06 08:11 PM, fahrenheit wrote: He died of a heart attack in the middle of a jungle surrounded by teenage gunmen, most of which he barely knew and wouldnt have cared sending them to their deaths.
At 12/5/06 01:49 AM, Techware wrote:At 12/5/06 12:54 AM, Peter-II wrote:Where do you get your information?Heh, you're worthless. Perhaps you should be hanged.
Well, at least I'm not a tile se--where do you get your information?
At 12/4/06 07:42 PM, Techware wrote: Yep, because I have to be perfect, and forgot my real life and remember everything I did on NewGrounds. I provided you with your source on an example with what happend to Reagan. I even gave examples of current events, and yet you're still trying to act like you came out on top, which is very entertaining.
Well you see you've only provided a source for the fact that the media is willing to get information by illegal means. What I want to know is where you get your information on current events, if not by the media.
So, what is your completely unbiased news source? Tell you the truth, I've been looking for one for a while.
At 12/4/06 11:44 PM, Techware wrote: Yeah. People he thought were trying to assassinate him.
Where do you get your information?
Denying me will only reinforce my want for a completely unbiased news source, Techware.
I can't stop until I'm enlightened. After all, the assumption can be made that all information Techware gets is unbiased and indisputably correct, since he's so confident in his claims. I wonder why so few people know of such a source.
Some people would argue that the child consents. However, often the child is pressured into consenting, and also the child doesn't really know what they're doing.
There's a lot wrong with it. Paedophilia itself is okay but child molestation is not. So long as you don't act on your attractions.
At 12/2/06 11:43 PM, BanditByte wrote: I believe it's called karma.
Karma doesn't exist. It would fail to explain why, for instance, Pol Pot died peacefully.
Techware, where do you get your information?
It's not a difficult question to answer, Techware, where do you get your information?
At 11/29/06 11:35 AM, Techware wrote:At 11/29/06 11:18 AM, Peter-II wrote:And, for some reason, you think "your" is short for "you are".You are stupid showing?
Oh, I see.
Either way, it doesn't make grammatical sense. It should be "your stupid's showing" or something to that effect.
Hey Techware, where do you get your information?
At 11/28/06 11:54 PM, Techware wrote: So Kev, your stupid showing =D
And, for some reason, you think "your" is short for "you are".
Homosexuality is sort of like nature's birth control. Even if you abort all fetuses characterised by a "gay gene", chances are you'll be wanting children anyway. In other words, aborting all gay fetuses would be pretty much destroying one of the only limits of population growth.
Not really a smart idea.
Depending on fission energy instead of fossil fuels should be a stop-cap solution, i.e., it should only be used while renewable energy resources are being developed.
Once we have fusion, then that should obviously be used.
Why, he's a whole day overdue.
At 11/26/06 02:34 PM, dawin45 wrote:How isn't the evolutionary theory right?Because you for eg. didn't become a human from a bacteria, aND never will and never where...and no evolutionary stage or experiment could explain that, it's just simply not possible scientificly...
Right...so because YOU don't understand it, "it's not possible scientifically"?
Oh wait, you weren't replying to me. My mistake.
Where do you get your information?
At 11/26/06 03:58 PM, Techware wrote:At 11/26/06 02:40 PM, Jose wrote:Where do you get your information?I can give you an example come tomorrow. But the fact that you're putting all your trust in the Media (Who in the hell trusts an "Anonymous source").
C'mon, you can't be that blind to think they don't. As they say, the only thing they care about is a story.
I never said I put my full trust in the media.
Where do you get your information?
At 9/27/06 07:22 PM, Talcum wrote: Discuss.
It's not really so much that which bothers me about your "typical creationist". It's more the fact that they deny that a) there's a large amount of evidence for the big bang, and hence b) assume that it's merely a tentative suggestion.
"Just a theory". Hah. Yeah. Because of course a theory in terms of science is a complete, out-of-the-blue, anti-god speculation as opposed to the best current explanatory model of certain aspects of the universe.
At 11/21/06 06:18 PM, BanditByte wrote: ROFLCOPTER, the monitor doesn't need to consent because its an inanimate object.
What do you mean, "it doesn't need to consent"? What it is that separates your monitor from the rest of the general populace?
And of course it's an inanimate object, that's why it can't compare with someone of the same gender. Get a clue.
YOu must be a conservative nazi.
I don't like where this is going.
At 11/20/06 06:19 PM, BanditByte wrote:At 11/20/06 04:14 PM, Peter-II wrote: Because your monitor is not a consenting adult.You're a bigot. How dare you tell me who and who I can't get married to?!
Civil unions imply consent. Your monitor can't consent.
http://www.slate.com/id/2075653/
At least give credit to the websites you plagiarize.
