Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/24/07 12:31 PM, Schmut wrote:

At 9/24/07 06:04 AM, Tomsan wrote: Well, thats news to me. because the BB theory cleary states it would have happened 14 biljion y ago. isnt that in direct conflict with what the bible says about creation?

Not all Christians follow the bible to the letter. Some christians are actually very rational and accept a lot of scientific theories. Unlike what a lot of people seem to say, there are many christians who accept big bang theory and evolution theory. Not everything in this world is black or white; there are many shades of grey.

agreed and I never stated otherwise

I mean I understand some chirstians kinda build in the BBT into their own believes, but to say they: " jumped on board " sounds kinda weird to me.

Yeah, they didn't jump on board as such. It was more of a figure of speech. However in the early days of the theory, there was a lot of religious support and a lot of scientists thought it was propostrous. Sounds strange, I know, because today it is one of the most widely accepted theories. Also, I may be exaggerating that a little. The point is there was religious support for it from very early on.

So you keep saying, but thats the think I dont believe. If you got any sources to back it up I would like to see them.

btw the BB theory doesnt state anything about a beginning. only about an expansion

Yes but a beginning is sort of implied and this is what the religious supporters liked about it. The big bang theory demonstrated that the universe had been expanding. Naturally, most people would therefore come to the conclusion that it was originally infinitely small and therefore non-existant. Although the theory doesn't state directly that there was a beginning, the beginning is implied. After all, big bang theory is the reason we even have a concept of the singularity or t=0, is it not?

So christians that misunderstood the BBT threw themselves on the the theory?
the beginning is not implied.
t=0 being the moment we cannot extrapolate any further, not being anything of a begining

At 9/23/07 08:58 PM, Schmut wrote:

At 9/23/07 08:18 PM, pieandeggs wrote: how is the BB theory athiest?

I In fact, when the big bang theory was first developed, a lot of Christians jumped on board claiming that it was proof that the universe had a beginning. So the big bang doesn't go against theistic beliefs at all.

Well, thats news to me. because the BB theory cleary states it would have happened 14 biljion y ago. isnt that in direct conflict with what the bible says about creation?

I mean I understand some chirstians kinda build in the BBT into their own believes, but to say they: " jumped on board " sounds kinda weird to me.

btw the BB theory doesnt state anything about a beginning. only about an expansion

At 9/20/07 06:42 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 9/20/07 01:07 PM, Tomsan wrote: he had lost his ability to write long after he already proved to be a great mind

There's no doubt he was a brilliant physicist even before his illness escalated. I'm not saying you need a wheelchair to be smart. However, he only came up with his absolutely groundbreaking theories years after he had paralyzed, for instance the black hole information paradox in 1975.

So that is still no reason to think his disabilities led to this groundbreaking theories, is it?

At 9/20/07 11:36 AM, AapoJoki wrote: Well, I think Stephen Hawking would be a good example on why this theory works. He had always been smart, but only after he could no longer use his hands for writing, his brain capacity started to increase to the radical size it is today.

What a bunch of bullshit.. radical size lol. were did you read that nonsense? who says he wouldnt be even smarter if he werent so handicapped??
this is an insane argument

Reason: he had to memorize everything he did, instead of writing it on a paper. He developed an excellent working memory and probably a very good long-term memory too. He can do incredibly complex equations and formulae in his head.

why did he have to memorize it? he has always been able to speak (1985 was when he lost his voice, but that was fixed very shortly after with the voice synthesizer) and he had lost his ability to write long after he already proved to be a great mind

I dont think one single official IQ test includes mostly memory related questions;
visual or technical insights have nothing to do with memory. You do need certain knowlegde, but it is not related to memory. also mathematical issues are unrelated to memory. again you need knowlegde for certain math tasks, but not memory.

you dont see difference between memory and understanding.
Once someone understands a certain mathematical problem it can solve it, you need a certain amount memory for this (ig you have to memorize the formula), but this has a threshold.
someone with a minimum memory capacaties can easily be better much in math then someone with enormous memory capacaties (autist), thus proving IQ is not entirely memory related. and by not entirely I mean not even close, just a small part.

Do you think this is going to become a catalyst that sparks a break-down in the european union or civil order in Belgium?

no, do you?

oh well... I'll still sleep tonight

You should've grabbed his cock.

At 9/12/07 09:36 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

At 9/12/07 12:04 AM, stybayo wrote: It's cool.

That has made me lose all respect for your argument, as that is hardly a decent statement to support your motives.

well booeeehoooeee no respect from mr sandy....

instead maybe you all should just follow some anti-violence courses

Agnostics thinks it is impossible to prove the existence of a god with our traditional science. They differ themselves from atheists, by saying it is impossible to show the existence or non-existence of a higher power, where atheists take the stance that there is no god.

but there are two types of agnostics, the so called strong and weak (not related to their intellectual abilities) agnostics.
the weak says he doesnt know if god exists. (*)
the strong say you cannot know if he exists. (**)

Now I consider myself as a atheist, but obviously I cannot prove the non existence of a god. Like you cannot prove that there is not a little pink spotted elephant circeling alpha centauri, or the toothfairy.
If something doesnt exist, only then in the idea, it can never be disproven.
We can discover how the universe works and so hopefully explain everything that looks magical or goddish, but the idea of god cannot be disproven, nor can it be proven(obviously)

No sane atheist will say he is 100% sure that there no god (although I do reject any personal described god with a 100% confidence).

In my own humble opinion agnostics are non existent, because you either believe in a god (and that doesnt have to be a 'commercial' god) or you dont. Agnostics way the odds as even, which is insane.
and probably near zero people will really think that.

(*) I think alot of people fall into this category. people who dont really follow a religion, but have underbelly feelings.
(**) Cannot know I feel is a big word, if god would show himself or would produce some other kind of miracle; I would confinced. But in a way this is a little bit the same perspective as atheists, because you cannot disprove something that doesnt exist.

So I can say that I am an confinced atheist, as long as we dont know how this universe came to be we will not know if we were created by a higher being. (still I would find it most annoying if I were to find out 'someone' made us, because that would raise alot of extra question wouldnt it.

1st 3 bachelor years are great, but my master is a pain in the ass. compulsory classes, alot of them; extremely steep learning curve. I am pretty much busy from 9 till 16 everyday (including weekends)\.

but as I said bachelor years are great nothing to worry about

lets also create alpha's; beta's; gamma's and epsilon's

At 9/9/07 11:59 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 9/9/07 09:50 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: It's important to understand that there is no real reason why a person defends certain ideals, just that they do, and it's mainly becuase of the way they were raised, Old habbits die hard.

Speak for yourself. I only defend ideas that I can logically justify in my own mind. Whenever I support a side in a debate, I do it because I think there's solid evidence that I'm right.

yup I agree with you; I have tons of reasons to defend a certain ideal, and for example my political orientation couldnt be further away of that of my parents.

At 9/5/07 04:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

I say that almost all arguments against atheism is way off. Atheism is when you aren't a Theist. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. No evolution, no big bang, no liberals, no death help from doctors, abortion, anti-religion, pro-science. All those things are not the same as atheism.

To say that atheism is flawed because of some flaw in evolution, is the same as saying Christianity is flawed because of some flaw in the republican party. It just isn't linked in the way people think.

I liked your statement, and I completely agree, but I have yet to meet an atheist that doesnt state the evolution theory as the most likely truth. And also doesnt found alot of his disbelief onto evolution theories.
your argument still counts, but I feel that evolution science and atheism are strongly connected. unwillingly maybe

I liked the story

funny to see a debate about the Netherlands, I wonder why..

pretty much we would be 'fucked' if any country attacked us, but its not gonna happen we are surrounded by allies and our military is co-oped with germany. But still we have a relative small army, and we are a small country.

about the influence, that is relatively high. A major country like france or germany has more influence; but in comparison to the number of inhabitants holland is of more influence. We have for example just changed the eu constitution..

but what matters most is its political and social enviroment; and that is very well, I dont care about the army

At 8/31/07 06:38 PM, reviewer-general wrote: I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and she mentioned that she prays for me every night. I asked why, since I am an agnostic, leaning towards atheist, and she responded: "Because I want you to find religion so you can live in eternal happiness and not suffer in hell".

you should slap her again and again and keep saying: "snap out of it" till she begins to cry

Excuse me? The way I understand it, the Bible says that we have the free will to believe in Him or not, yet it is preached that if we DON'T believe in Him, you will burn in hell with the rest of the sinners. How can this be explained? If I have the free will to decide if I believe, how can I punished for not believing?

irrelevant questions because there is no god anyways, and if there were he is nothing like any religion describes him.

At 9/1/07 03:01 AM, Insanatic wrote: Did you know it could prevent proestate cancer, colon cancer, osteoperosis, and even a number of lung disease, and thats not all. Its not as bad as you think. So tell me what is your problem with it.

"as bad as you think" ?? it is, and it definately doesnt prevent prostate-, colon cancer also it most definately doesnt prevent osteoperosis. that really funny it can cause it.
your in a denial phase or something because smoking = very bad for your health.

I know this (being a biomedical scientist and all; specializing in oncology), and still I am a smoker myself. I am finally flirting with the idea to quit soon though.

I was totally interested when I saw the titlel, but then I soon lost the interest

At 8/29/07 05:51 AM, Drakim wrote: Let's say we discover that the gene pool of humanity is rapidly getting worse, since even the sick and unfit survive in our society.

All of these solutions are generaly shunned by the public. So, what else is there? What are we going to do if such a problem arises? Even though stoping people from getting chidren is crule, is it even close to the suffering that humanity might have in the future if everybody is genericaly prone to be sick and die?

you should read: 'a brave new world' by Aldous Huxley. Fun easy to read book and its all about your question (more or less)

People volunteer joining the US military dont they? (I am not sure)
If so then wtf is that queer talkin about?

I checked if there wasnt a thread like this already, I didnt find any.

When I reply on a forum post, the speed at which I type is faster then the letters of the message appear. I dont really type that fast, and now I am not experiencing the problem, only when I reply (with or without quote).

What is this all about? do you guys experience the same?

I find it very annoying, because you cant spot typo's etc..
do any mods know anything about this?? or is it just me?

At 7/23/07 11:40 AM, Madferit wrote: Hunter 52

Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Romney 51

Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Huckabee 42

Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Tancredo 39

Same-Sex Constitutional Ban

Yes I'm pretty conservative.

lol thats not conservative thats just facist nazi crapp, people who are soo strongly against gays have something to hide I guess

Kucinich 23

I am not a US citizen, so I didnt fill in everything

At 7/23/07 12:27 AM, Flaming-Dookie wrote: China.

no china's net growth is zero sometimes even declining

a little harsh put maybe but some truth can be found in it.

but for the natives, the problem is different, you took all there land and butchered almost there entire civilization. I can understand they still feel a grutch against you for this, even the new generations. Maybe instead of giving them a desert you should give them some green areas too.

I loved how a political dude in my country said what you said in the face of a black guy. he said we had to recognize slavery (like we dont) and he just said: "if there wasnt slavery you wouldnt be here eating pizza BOY" I agree, time to forget the past and go on, you cant be mad at the white guy forever, it wont help you because we still rule the world.

At 7/23/07 03:06 AM, AdamRice wrote:

Chernobyl is possibly one of the most over hyped accidents in the history of the industrial revolution.

this I agree with

Only 31 people and they were all workers at the plant. The media and other retarded anti-nuclear organizations would like you to believe that thousands died. Even if you ad in the deaths from cancer that may or may not have been caused by fallout from the plant, the number only increases to 56.

This is not true, although only a few people died of the explosion, many more died securing the meltdown. virtually all firefighters and soldiers that where send to secure the meltdown died within a few months.
This still doesnt count up to much, but the commen consensus is that many more people in the surrounding area did die of cancer later in life. I know some sites state this otherwise and some site tend to overreact (I saw the treehuggers site greenpeace estimating it on 100.000+ or so.
I think its safe to assume alot of people died as a result of the explosion. although I dont really know what that number is precisly, no-one really seems to know.

Let's compare this with some other industrial accidents.
Texas City Refinery explosion. On March 23, 2005. One of BP's refineries exploded and killed 15 people.

Bhopal, India Disaster, December 3, 1984. A gas leak at a pesticide plant outright killed 3,800 people in the area.

Average number of coal mining deaths each year: 1000

I hope you guys see my point.

I see your point and I agree with it 100% and I dont think an accident like chernobyl would happen in 1st world countries as fast as in the broke cold-war russia

I am totally pro nuclear power.. Although it seems that efficiency isnt near its potential, when we build nuc power plants more knowlegde is obtain also. This is very usefull for future practises.
there must be severe security measures tho, for greenpeace(oh how I hate those stupid treehuggers) infiltrated a nuclear powerplant not long ago pretty easily.

The waste problem is such a stupid non-argument, there is very little waste and although it will be here forever we can easily and savely store it. evntually we can shoot it in space e.g.

obviously nuclear power development should go hand in hand with solar and wind energy solutions

tankman was here first, and he is in the official NG picture so logical choice I guess