I could sit here and debate with all the religous, atheists and extremists however i dont believe in any of thos, i'm here, i exsist, i will do with my life what i chose to and no God will tell me otherwise, until i see an act of god and i chose not to define that, i will live my life to its fullest because i have one thanks to our exsistance
I'm no spring chicken, but I'm not that old. Have you never taken a geology class? The evidence of this is all around, and has been studied for quite some time. This isn't some baseless theory of a whackjob that most of the scientific community disputes.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Were you there? Where's the evidence to support this? Again, you believe this on faith. Faith that the person that thought this up was a lot smarter than you.
If you want to get down to a purely philosphical stance, all of science is a theory because the ability to test it is finite, while the number of testings that could be run are infinite. While we may not fully understand how gravity works, we can measure it and have a pretty good understanding of it. Again, because testing could be infinitely run, there is always the possibility that the theories of gravity may not hold true at some point, but are you willing to jump on a skyscraper to test whether your one attempt, and one is all I'm betting you wouldget, will be that one time that it doesn't hold true.
Science is not static. As more research is done, and better equipment for testing becomes available, some theories are revised, and other replaced completely. That doesn't change the fact that the computer on which you visit these forums, the electricity that powers your home, the car you drive, the plane you fly in, and the treatments that doctors provide, etc. are at the point they are because of generally accepted scientific principles.
The thing I find most odd about people looking down on science as nothing but theory are willing to take the benefits of, even praising science and scientific theory, right up to the point where it clashes with their religious beliefs, and then it's nothing but theory that can't be substantiated beyond any doubt.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-03-23 08:38:53)
religion has always tried to hamper the evolution of science and knowledge of the world around us
I have faith in things that are absolute. Gravity, for example, is absolute. The sun is absolute. God is not absolute, no matter how much you may convince yourself of it. Faith in God is blind-faith, and has no basis on any science whatsoever.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I believe science has its place too. But many things go unexplained in science. If out of nothing, nothing comes, where did earth come from? If energy neither created nor destroyed explain how this world came about. And remember that science is about theories.So, you admit to live by faith too?Skruples wrote:
I believe you are referring to the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the first law: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
When the Big Bang is looked at from this perspective, it appears that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. After all, at first there was nothing, and then there was a whole lot of something, and it apparently came from nowhere. The explanations to counter this argument are incredibely complex, and filled with high level physics, so I will not go into it here. Suffice it to say, I still believe the incredibely complex theories more than I believe "God did it".
If you want to learn more about it, I suggest (again) going to your local library and picking up a book dedicated to the subject. Stephen Hawking has done some very interesting work, but if I try and read it for longer than 5 minutes at a time I pass out.
My point was that averaging the surface of the earth to prove that water could cover everything has no meaning. If water did cover everything, it would be like that all of or almost all of the time, and thus no land creatures would exist. No land creatures = no Noah to build the Ark. This isn't even taking into account the timeline laid out in the Bible, which has this occuring only a few thousand years ago, when the surfaces of the Earth were almost identical to what they are today, and thus not prone to being flooded. So again, proving that water could cover every surface on Earth is meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned, unless you can prove it happened in the last few millennia.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Actually there is:
"There is enough water in the oceans so that, if all the surface features of the earth were evened out, water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). This is not enough to cover mountains the height of Everest, but it shows that the pre-Flood mountains could have been several kilometers high and still be covered."You previously wrote that the mountain rose over millions of years but now you say "mainly that the surfaces of the Earth are not evened out." True today, but what about your millions of years ago? "The oceans cover most of the Earth's surface, and on average are much deeper than the land surfaces are high." Would that not make it possible for all of earth to be covered in water? Answer this, how much water comparable to that on the Earth's surface is below ground?Skruples wrote:
If you reread my original quote, you will seeHowever, even if we disregarding that, there are several problems with your quote, mainly that the surfaces of the Earth are not evened out. The oceans cover most of the Earth's surface, and on average are much deeper than the land surfaces are high. (In other words, averaging the surface of the Earth doesnt mean a damn thing). Furthermore, the Noah story (which I believe you are referring to with this talk of global flooding) takes place in the recent past (geologically speaking) when the Earth's surfaces were definitelySkruples wrote:
I would also note that there is not enough water in liquid, ice and vapor form combined to flood the entire earth as it exists today.
not evened out, and so my original point stands: There is not enough water on Earth to flood every land mass.
A source for your quote would also be good.
As would one from you.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … /flood.asp
The logical problems with a global flood dont stop there. If the entire earth was flooded, how did the freshwater fish survive? How did the animals aboard the Ark repopulate the entire planet, including geographically isolated islands and continents in such a short period of time? This page provides scientific evidence against the flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
It is, of course, biased against the flood, but I doubt you will find any respectable scientific articles that support creationist doctrine.
As far as your source is concerned, one only needs to read the title to know that they're not reliable: "Answers in Genesis, Upholding the Authority of the Bible From the Very First Verse." You might as well get cocaine health facts from your local dealer.
My point was that the question is again, meaningless, as far as we are concerned. If you follow the logic presented by the article I linked, You will see that the chance of this particular universe coming into existence is pretty low, when compared with any number of other universes. But it doesnt matter, because the fact is that the universe does exist, and it existed for billions of years before the Earth even formed. If Human life and the universe had existed for roughly the same time, I would be much more inclined to believe that they had been designed for each other.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
It's very easy to say "we are here because the deck was lined up the way it was." Now explain how the deck got lined up to begin with.
Here is that article again, in case you missed it the first time: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
If you understood my reasoning the first time around, you would see that ice becomes more ordered when the energy in the system is reduced. You take energy away, the water molecules reallign themselves into a predertermined shape... every time. This has nothing to do with 'intelligent design', its simple physics. One 'side' of the water molecule has a slightly negative charge, the other a slightly positive charge, neighboring molecules allign their negative sides to others' positive sides, and ice forms.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
No "outside guidance"? You're freezing it. What happens to liquids when submitted to their freezing points?
The point of all that was the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to order in the same way they apply to energy. Order does not always decrease in a system. In fact, many systems in nature become more ordered under certain conditions. Thus, applying the laws of thermodynamics universally, and especially to a living organism is a flawed argument. What the laws of thermodynamics do appear to apply to almost universally is the flow of energy, in that energy in a system does not increase spontaneously. This does not apply to living organisms or the planet Earth, because the sun provides energy for the system.
Funny how religion is mostly story and myth of what is almost certainly not true, and absolutely cannot be proven. Yet you are still inclined to believe it more than the science which at least has some credible evidence to back it up.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
This has never been observed yet you state it as fact. Funny how science is mostly theories of what is most likely true but can't be proven.
As for my original quote: "The organs that seem so complicated today, such as the eyeball, are the result of a few million generations of slightly less complicated eyes saving their owners lives' long enough for them to reproduce. The eyes that didn't work well enough were eliminated with the organism they were a part of, and never made it to this point in time." I believe agent_dung_bomb answered that question well enough. Why do humans have a tailbone? is it because, perhaps, we evolved from something that once had a tail? There are several other vestigial organs in humans alone that would seem to provide evidence for an evolutionary theory of existence.
I would have to say that while the people (plural) who thought this up were not necessarily smarter than us, but certainly more motivated, better funded, more educated and better equipped to study the issue. Would you challenge the judgement of a brain surgeon before he operates? No, because he is specialized in his field, and you are not. Likewise, questioning decades of scientific research (which is almost universally accepted by the scientific community) is not intelligent.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Were you there? Where's the evidence to support this? Again, you believe this on faith. Faith that the person that thought this up was a lot smarter than you.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
During the early formation of this planet the conditions were extremely volotile. Massive heat, molten states, constant bombardment of asteroids and other space debris, radiation, etc.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
But never in the history of science has a copy added to itself. A copy is just that a copy. So a single cell cannot become multiple cells after that copy.
Here is a relatively short description of the early Earth: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa … years.html
Here is a much more in depth look: http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3a.html
and here is a very in depth and long look at the issues regarding the creation of life: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … 20MainPage
If you truly understood evolutionary theory, you would know that evolution does not bring about positive changes, it eliminates negative changes. Evolution is an 'editing' mechanism, by which negative aspects of an organism's physiology are decreased or eliminated. The 'errors' caused by random mutation either cause the survivability of an organism to increase (leading to more offspring, and the perpetuation of that error) or more likely it decreases the chances of survival (leading to the organisms death, and the extinction of that genetic line). Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article on evolution as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution# … _selectionwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MutationAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Why do humans have cells that mutate into cancerous cells? Science has in fact proven that there are outside influences, that if a person is exposed to them, will cause such mutations. Why do we have birth defects? Because something went wrong and caused the offspring to fail to form properly. If the environment required changes to survive, changes could have occurred. Single cell organisms are not like digital computer data. Flaws and external influences can causes changes to occur after generations of offspring.
Read up. You will be surprised. By definition, all are errors.
I'm not sure what your point is. People who live near the equator have developed darker skin to reduce damage from more intense ultraviolet radiation from the sun. That is a permanent adaptation, genetically passed on. Getting a tan from mowing your lawn is not the same thing. If you conceive a child whild you have a tan, the child will not have darker skin; getting a tan is a temporary reaction to a temporary increase in sun exposure. It is not genetic. If every generation for a few thousand years you were exposed to high levels of solar radiation, then it is likely that your distant progeny would have darker skin (or you would all die of skin cancer).wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
This doesn't explain what he was covering which is macroevolution. An African lives near the equator where the sun is the hottest. Africans are black in skin color. When I cut my grass my skin darkens. Hmmm... In England it is overcast a lot. The people in England are white. Hmmm... Now look up microevolution vs. macroevolution and you should see the difference.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
His use of eyes was only an example, but I'm not sure where you found that no evidence of this has never been found. Cave dwelling animals that live in constant darkness have lost pigment and while having what appear to be eyes, are in fact just useless remnants...they can't see. They evolved to survive in that environment. If they were designed by God to live in such a place, why would they even have the remnants of eyes?
And please, if you're going to link any more articles, try and get them from non religious sources. I don't go to my local physics professor for advice on God, and you shouldn't do the opposite.
Just a thought from Einstein, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Maybe we are not always arguing right vs. wrong...perhaps they complement each other.
On to my debate,
With the probability of the universe occuring as it currently is, of course the probability of it occuring the way it happened is 1. If something occured, the probability that that event occured is always 1 (i.e. 100%). However, that was not what I was saying. I was saying that the probability that the current universe (or even something similar) developing into what it currently is is very small. I am trying to say that Bayes's Theorem of Probability (what I think you used) is not what I am talking about (simple probability). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem ) I hope this is somewhat clear.
Maybe we are not always arguing right vs. wrong...perhaps they complement each other.
On to my debate,
With the probability of the universe occuring as it currently is, of course the probability of it occuring the way it happened is 1. If something occured, the probability that that event occured is always 1 (i.e. 100%). However, that was not what I was saying. I was saying that the probability that the current universe (or even something similar) developing into what it currently is is very small. I am trying to say that Bayes's Theorem of Probability (what I think you used) is not what I am talking about (simple probability). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem ) I hope this is somewhat clear.
NOT AT ALL :s LOL but sounds intresting
I will first address this comment.
If all was dark since the beginning would we have working eyes, sockets but no eyes, or nothing there at all?
And yet the fossil record remains silent.
"Hey sailor what did you see?"
"I looked out and saw the edge of the world on the horizon. Saw some monsters too."
"Why he must be correct because he has a boat and sails it daily. He is an expert in his field. It's a fact!"
I would assume his employer reviewed his references and confirmed his degree. But this day and age you never know. Look at GA Tech's old football coach... he lied about his degree but still worked for GA Tech because no one verified it. In other words, they took his word on it because hey, why would he lie? Oh yeah, money.
Ever hear of scientist falsifing data to continue to receive funding? It happens more often than you think. And what happens if the funders want a specific outcome. Take MS for instance. They hired a firm to review IE and then gave a press conference about how good IE is.
Interesting! I was gathering evidence and lo and behold I found 2 opposing arguments. One for you side and one for my side. And I discovered there are scientist on both sides as well. And what a coincidence that the scientist opposing your viewpoints have been picked up by Christian sites. Imagine that. But in your case, forbidding me to post those links makes for an easy debate.Skruples wrote:
And please, if you're going to link any more articles, try and get them from non religious sources. I don't go to my local physics professor for advice on God, and you shouldn't do the opposite.
My friend had faith in all chairs until he became 330 lbs and sat in a plastic one and it folded after 15 minutes of stress.Skruples wrote:
I have faith in things that are absolute. Gravity, for example, is absolute. The sun is absolute. God is not absolute, no matter how much you may convince yourself of it. Faith in God is blind-faith, and has no basis on any science whatsoever.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
So, you admit to live by faith too?
Read my intro. The Earth is still changing today. Plate tectonics states the plates haven't stopped moving and thus the Himalayas, for example, are still rising. A global flood could have helped move the plates at a very fast rate. There is a hypothesis that the water erupted from underground and pushed the plates apart as well as fell from the atmosphere.Skruples wrote:
My point was that averaging the surface of the earth to prove that water could cover everything has no meaning. If water did cover everything, it would be like that all of or almost all of the time, and thus no land creatures would exist. No land creatures = no Noah to build the Ark. This isn't even taking into account the timeline laid out in the Bible, which has this occuring only a few thousand years ago, when the surfaces of the Earth were almost identical to what they are today, and thus not prone to being flooded. So again, proving that water could cover every surface on Earth is meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned, unless you can prove it happened in the last few millennia.
The logical problems with a global flood dont stop there. If the entire earth was flooded, how did the freshwater fish survive? How did the animals aboard the Ark repopulate the entire planet, including geographically isolated islands and continents in such a short period of time? This page provides scientific evidence against the flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
It is, of course, biased against the flood, but I doubt you will find any respectable scientific articles that support creationist doctrine.
As far as your source is concerned, one only needs to read the title to know that they're not reliable: "Answers in Genesis, Upholding the Authority of the Bible From the Very First Verse." You might as well get cocaine health facts from your local dealer.
But how did it get here? To say it existed and we existed after the fact so now I don't have to contemplate how the universe got there in the first place is circular logic. Did it self create?Skruples wrote:
My point was that the question is again, meaningless, as far as we are concerned. If you follow the logic presented by the article I linked, You will see that the chance of this particular universe coming into existence is pretty low, when compared with any number of other universes. But it doesnt matter, because the fact is that the universe does exist, and it existed for billions of years before the Earth even formed. If Human life and the universe had existed for roughly the same time, I would be much more inclined to believe that they had been designed for each other.
Here is that article again, in case you missed it the first time: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
Agent_dung_bomb stated micro evolution. From a single cell to the eyes we have today is quite a leap. The eyes of those fish are no longer used but they're still there in an undeveloped state with a flap over them. Kind of like my dark skin white skin explanation. Do you need light to see in the dark? Most certainly!Skruples wrote:
Funny how religion is mostly story and myth of what is almost certainly not true, and absolutely cannot be proven. Yet you are still inclined to believe it more than the science which at least has some credible evidence to back it up.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
This has never been observed yet you state it as fact. Funny how science is mostly theories of what is most likely true but can't be proven.
As for my original quote: "The organs that seem so complicated today, such as the eyeball, are the result of a few million generations of slightly less complicated eyes saving their owners lives' long enough for them to reproduce. The eyes that didn't work well enough were eliminated with the organism they were a part of, and never made it to this point in time." I believe agent_dung_bomb answered that question well enough. Why do humans have a tailbone? is it because, perhaps, we evolved from something that once had a tail? There are several other vestigial organs in humans alone that would seem to provide evidence for an evolutionary theory of existence.
If all was dark since the beginning would we have working eyes, sockets but no eyes, or nothing there at all?
And yet the fossil record remains silent.
This kind of logic kept the world flat for thousands of years.Skruples wrote:
I would have to say that while the people (plural) who thought this up were not necessarily smarter than us, but certainly more motivated, better funded, more educated and better equipped to study the issue. Would you challenge the judgement of a brain surgeon before he operates? No, because he is specialized in his field, and you are not. Likewise, questioning decades of scientific research (which is almost universally accepted by the scientific community) is not intelligent.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Were you there? Where's the evidence to support this? Again, you believe this on faith. Faith that the person that thought this up was a lot smarter than you.
"Hey sailor what did you see?"
"I looked out and saw the edge of the world on the horizon. Saw some monsters too."
"Why he must be correct because he has a boat and sails it daily. He is an expert in his field. It's a fact!"
I would assume his employer reviewed his references and confirmed his degree. But this day and age you never know. Look at GA Tech's old football coach... he lied about his degree but still worked for GA Tech because no one verified it. In other words, they took his word on it because hey, why would he lie? Oh yeah, money.
Ever hear of scientist falsifing data to continue to receive funding? It happens more often than you think. And what happens if the funders want a specific outcome. Take MS for instance. They hired a firm to review IE and then gave a press conference about how good IE is.
Now that's a conundrum! I think you have missquoted the theory. If there are no positive changes and no negative changes then all would remain the same. In the mutations, is DNA lost? Can you name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations?Skruples wrote:
If you truly understood evolutionary theory, you would know that evolution does not bring about positive changes, it eliminates negative changes. Evolution is an 'editing' mechanism, by which negative aspects of an organism's physiology are decreased or eliminated. The 'errors' caused by random mutation either cause the survivability of an organism to increase (leading to more offspring, and the perpetuation of that error) or more likely it decreases the chances of survival (leading to the organisms death, and the extinction of that genetic line). Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article on evolution as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution# … _selection
Uh-huh. And, of course, we all know that science itself has never opposed new methods and theories.herrr_smity wrote:
religion has always tried to hamper the evolution of science and knowledge of the world around us
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideasunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Uh-huh. And, of course, we all know that science itself has never opposed new methods and theories.herrr_smity wrote:
religion has always tried to hamper the evolution of science and knowledge of the world around us
Tell that to the masses of poor, dumb "voluntary" or "(un)knowingly involuntary" human guinea pigs used to test various items science has/had to offer. Prime example: radioactive fallout from nuclear tests in western continental US as a cause of increased cancer-related deaths in the area.herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideasunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Uh-huh. And, of course, we all know that science itself has never opposed new methods and theories.herrr_smity wrote:
religion has always tried to hamper the evolution of science and knowledge of the world around us
Science isn't all about scoping out planets and dissecting amphibians.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 09:31:31)
Just ask the Jews at Auschwitz, etc.... Plenty of new ideas were tossed around there.herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideas
wtf are you taking about, psycho German doctors didErkut.hv wrote:
Just ask the Jews at Auschwitz, etc.... Plenty of new ideas were tossed around there.herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideas
In the name of science. Who conducts experiments? Scientists. If they recorded data, they were conducting experiments. You said Science never killed anyone with new ideas. I contested your point.herrr_smity wrote:
wtf are you taking about, psycho German doctors didErkut.hv wrote:
Just ask the Jews at Auschwitz, etc.... Plenty of new ideas were tossed around there.herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideas
that is not what i am taking about, what you don't seem to understand is that new ideas aren't the killer.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Tell that to the masses of poor, dumb "voluntary" or "(un)knowingly involuntary" human guinea pigs used to test various items science has/had to offer. Prime example: radioactive fallout from nuclear tests in western continental US as a cause of increased cancer-related deaths in the area.herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideasunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Uh-huh. And, of course, we all know that science itself has never opposed new methods and theories.
Science isn't all about scoping out planets and dissecting amphibians.
you seem to be a bit confused
I'm still waiting for a comet named Hale Bop to fly past earth, at which time I will rejoin my makers in a suicidal ritual that involves Jello shots, Meat Loaf, and a 3 legged cat.
Yeah, you guessed it....... I'm Mormon.
Yeah, you guessed it....... I'm Mormon.
Not in the slightest. You said new ideas in science never killed anybody. Experiments were done on living subjects. Experiments by their nature involve new ideas/ theories being worked on.herrr_smity wrote:
that is not what i am taking about, what you don't seem to understand is that new ideas aren't the killer.
you seem to be a bit confused
Wasn't it scientist that invented the atom bomb?herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideasunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Uh-huh. And, of course, we all know that science itself has never opposed new methods and theories.herrr_smity wrote:
religion has always tried to hamper the evolution of science and knowledge of the world around us
pwn3dwannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Wasn't it scientist that invented the atom bomb?herrr_smity wrote:
yea but science has never killed people withe new ideasunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Uh-huh. And, of course, we all know that science itself has never opposed new methods and theories.
Though this statement has already been contested by other posters, I would like to add that I am always amused to see the reflexive "concerned-about-mental-capacity" defense that poorly-prepared people use against anyone who push a solid point into the middle of a debate.herrr_smity wrote:
that is not what i am taking about, what you don't seem to understand is that new ideas aren't the killer.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
better stuffherrr_smity wrote:
plain stuff
you seem to be a bit confused
As for your "new ideas not killing people" belief...heck, a long time ago, somebody got the bright idea of using powder to hurl projectiles at extreme speeds. Before that, other people decided that it was a good idea to process raw materials into metals for use in bladed armaments. If these haven't killed anybody, then I don't know what has.
Now if you're about to say that I'm proposing the discontinuation of scientific research, you're seriously mistaken. However, I believe that practical application of new, unsure ideas should be approached with some modicum of caution. Put it this way: in an extreme, easy-to-understand case, if some seriously smart human figured out a way to collapse all three dimensions in our universe into one, would you be rushing to put the idea to work?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 10:28:09)
yes experience not ideas you do seem to mix up theories and experiments.Erkut.hv wrote:
Not in the slightest. You said new ideas in science never killed anybody. Experiments were done on living subjects. Experiments by their nature involve new ideas/ theories being worked on.herrr_smity wrote:
that is not what i am taking about, what you don't seem to understand is that new ideas aren't the killer.
you seem to be a bit confused
there's much more to science then the physical part
If we take the side of the anti gun folks then it was the swords that did the killing and they should have been destroyed a long time ago. ; )unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Though this statement has already been contested by other posters, I would like to add that I am always amused to see the reflexive "concerned-about-mental-capacity" defense that poorly-prepared people use against anyone who push a solid point into the middle of a debate.
As for your "new ideas not killing people" belief...heck, a long time ago, somebody got the bright idea of using powder to hurl projectiles at extreme speeds. Before that, other people decided that it was a good idea to process raw materials into metals for use in bladed armaments. If these haven't killed anybody, then I don't know what has.
EDIT- added ; ) to indicate sarcasm. Sorry, i forgot i was on a forum.
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-03-24 10:42:24)
You misunderstand my reasoning. The update I made recently to my last post (third paragraph) should correct any misconceptions. But no, I never said that it was a bad idea to proceed with scientific development. I said that new, potentially hazardous technology should be eyeballed with skeptical caution. And before that, I originally retorted against accusations of religion being a constant roadblock against scientific research, when science itself wasn't free of said onus.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
If we take the side of the anti gun folks then it was the swords that did the killing and they should have been destroyed a long time ago.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-03-24 10:32:44)
five words embryonic stemcell researchunnamednewbie13 wrote:
You misunderstand my reasoning. The update I made recently to my last post (third paragraph) should correct any misconceptions. But no, I never said that it was a bad idea to proceed with scientific development. I said that new, potentially hazardous technology should be eyeballed with skeptical caution. And before that, I originally retorted against accusations of religion being a constant roadblock against scientific research, when science itself wasn't free of said onus.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
If we take the side of the anti gun folks then it was the swords that did the killing and they should have been destroyed a long time ago.
2 words.herrr_smity wrote:
five words embryonic stemcell researchunnamednewbie13 wrote:
You misunderstand my reasoning. The update I made recently to my last post (third paragraph) should correct any misconceptions. But no, I never said that it was a bad idea to proceed with scientific development. I said that new, potentially hazardous technology should be eyeballed with skeptical caution. And before that, I originally retorted against accusations of religion being a constant roadblock against scientific research, when science itself wasn't free of said onus.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
If we take the side of the anti gun folks then it was the swords that did the killing and they should have been destroyed a long time ago.
mustard gas.
oooooooooooooowannabe_tank_whore wrote:
2 words.herrr_smity wrote:
five words embryonic stemcell researchunnamednewbie13 wrote:
You misunderstand my reasoning. The update I made recently to my last post (third paragraph) should correct any misconceptions. But no, I never said that it was a bad idea to proceed with scientific development. I said that new, potentially hazardous technology should be eyeballed with skeptical caution. And before that, I originally retorted against accusations of religion being a constant roadblock against scientific research, when science itself wasn't free of said onus.
mustard gas.