SeVeR

If science could explain everything then there wouldn't be science. What you've done is take this event, for which the cause is unknown, and given it a cause. This is obviously not evidence to support the existence of God or the validity of the Bible, try again. You said you had evidence, not unknown events. You could just as well say the presence of uranium is evidence for a God since we don't have an astrophysical site (yet) to explain its creation. It's simple. If God created the Big Bang, then how do you explain the story in Genesis? Or is the Earth somehow special, and wasn't created through the post-Big-Bang natural course of events. Before you start, i have a wealth of evidence for the natural creation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Right.... and i suppose you expect me to have read these "other venues", that are not quoted, and leave the question open to what venues you are talking about. Please, stop clutching at straws here and admit you made a mistake. The way you originally put it really does appear to be referring to this thread. I've already told you i'm not an atheist! LOL! You tell me you've never claimed to be a Christian. So are you Christian? If you are then my original guess was correct.

yea!

Hakaku: I've been told by many Christians that a murdering rapist will get into heaven if he genuinely accepts Jesus on his death-bed. The tales of forgiveness, with which the Bible is riddled, appear to support this statement. Brain: What evidence? (this is traditionally the point where the Christian makes a quick exit from the argument). That's certainly possible. So how do you need to interpret the Bible now? Actually no-one in this thread has claimed to be an atheist, so please, stop making excuses. And being a hypocrite, a liar and a re!@#$%^&* is obviously in your nature. Case closed. Actually come to think of it, you've re-interpreted this thread to make it read the way you need it to read to make your re!@#$%^&*ed !@#$%^&*umption factual, something that should be very familiar to a Christian... ROFL

Matter and Energy are interchangable and cannot be created or destroyed. My quotations were to tell a story. I understand what Aileron originally meant about the most basic law of physics. But then he said a planned universe explains away the improbabilities and that this requires a planner. Yet this only subs!@#$%^&*utes one un-caused object with another, one which has consciousness of all things; something i find moronic. At least we can see how a massive ball of energy is theoretically possible, even if we don't know what caused it. And i wouldn't say i've ever been annoyed with Knightflame on this topic; it's more of an attempt to get personal, in the hope he would prove a few of my theories about Christians.

shoots Greased for shooting kid753 for attacking Aileron for killing flamingstarch for eh.... i dunno anymore *Shoots self*

Brain: I never claimed to be an atheist. Many Christians make that mistake when up against a vehement criticism of their beliefs, and drivel like this is the result. I guess it's in your nature to assume so i'll forgive it. God may exist, just like the Easter Bunny may exist. There is just no evidence for God existing, just like there is no evidence of him not existing. Again, with the Big Bang theory, no scientist will tell you that this big surge of energy came from nowhere. They'll tell you that we can trace the universe back to a point when it was very small, dense and hot, and this indicates an explosion. What caused the explosion is unknown, in the same way God's existence is unknown. There are no unsubstantiated !@#$%^&*umptions in the Big Bang theory.

I'm sure they think about it alot if they are of a mature age (most believers are taught to believe at a young age, rather than deciding for themselves). Those that think about the choice they are making convince themselves it is true because of the aforementioned benefits. To what degree this is a subconcious drive, i do not know. The fear of death and the fear of complete insignificance with no purpose can certainly drive someone to religion.

People believe in a religion because of the psychological benefits. For example: 1. You believe you are a good person. 2. You believe you are going to heaven and living forever. 3. You believe your life has a purpose. 4. You believe you are closer to the God, the greatest, most wonderful force in the universe. 5. The common goal of all men is to strive for perfection in life. If you re-define perfection into something easily achievable (being a Christian), you end up with a tremendous amount of self gratification. If humanity understood it's own desires, there would be no religion. One look at those five points tells you that Christians have answered the following: 1. How can i lead a worthwhile life? 2. What comes after death? 3. What is the meaning of life? 4. What created the universe and how do i communicate with it? 5. How do i reach perfection? Questions that nag at our minds from the moment we are able to think for ourselves. By providing an unsupported improvable answer to those questions we take away a part of our own humanity, our curiousity.

ROFL In the beginning there was a monkey-giraffe-goat and his slave, the fish-snake-toblerone. They had nasty beast sex and the animal kingdom was born. They all floated around in nothingness until a walrus-pirate-ninja did a massive dump, which exploded into the universe. They all lived happily ever after. The End. Do you believe me knightflame? My story has as much basis in reality as yours. If you believe a story with no supporting evidence then you should believe mine.

Thankyou, you couldn't have paid me a better compliment. Your loose grip on the English language is typical of a Christian nut-job. Did your mummy tell you the Bible is all that matters? It's a pity because there are so many fantastic books out there. Do you like being a guide to lost souls? Does it fill you with a sense of purpose? Do you feel the Lord working through you? Are the voices in your head loud and clear, or an echo of your own ego?

Greased: The loans did come at a high price. The price was Britain must make sterling convertible to dollars on demand. This permanently destroyed Britain as an economic power and handed power to the US. Many of Britains military bases around the world also had to be given to the US. Not to mention that the loans are being paid back in full. Additionally, the US had to help Europe to fend off the influence of the Soviets, it was in their interests. But lastly, if the US had fought the war from the start then there wouldn't have been a need for the loans. The US effectively rented out their armed forces to fight a war they should have been fighting voluntarily anyway... what a bunch of money-hungry cowards. Astro: I would not trust Iran with nuclear weapons either. However i don't see Iran ever going hostile in the Middle East, no matter what happens in Iraq or Saudi Arabia; there is too much to lose. They gain far more from sending covert forces and spies into Iraq, and making secret deals and alliances with the Shia dominated Iraqi government. Their influence in Syria may extend to Lebanon. I don't think its worth it to make an official war on anyone.

someone ban this idiot.

The Bible has hundreds of prophecies and each is as vague as the next. Over 2000 years of history there's bound to be some incidents that fall into the realms of "interpretable by a Bible prophecy". When the world doesn't end in your lifetime, i hope you look back on your insignificant life and realise what a waste it was. If there is a God then he's probably sending you straight to !@#$%^&* for being such a presumptious !@#$%^&*hole. I don't presume to know the mind of God, or believe in men who call themselves prophets in order to sustain their desperate desire for a purpose in this life. Take your new found purpose and shove it up your !@#$%^&*, because i don't need to be warned and neither does anyone else who doesn't believe in your God. (Take a hint and go to a Bible forum)

I've tried reinstalling continuum. I've tried removing my firewall. I can check for blocked ports, but i don't know their relevence if they are blocked. Nothing seems to work.

Here's another question on the subject of Jessica's: If you were ship-wrecked and were stranded on a desert island with Jessica Alba, Jessica Biel and Jessica Simpson, and both your legs were broken, who would you: A:: have incredible sex with. B:: kill and eat. C:: send off to collect firewood. AND WHY? Bear in mind that you can't pick 'A' for all three; it has to be one Jessica for each choice.

I dunno... best to try living with someone that re!@#$%^&*ed before coming to that conclusion.

You have no evidential basis for saying that. Why do you think Iran will become hostile? It's far more likely that America will strike Iran, legitimizing it with come half-!@#$%^&*ed excuse about WMDs or terrorism. Why? Because they've done it before, and the same process of incrimination within the media (that happened to Iraq) is happening to Iran now. What's your excuse?

Trent-Severn Waterway? Gee, they could have at least come up with an original name for it. There was me thinking England when its just a Canadian rip-off name. I've got 4 months off before i do my Physics PhD and become Dr SeVeR (lol, not my real name actually). In the meantime i'll be reading, investing in the stock market, getting drunk, travelling, working out... pretty much anything other than Physics.

No proof, just anti-islamic fear mongering.

If 40 people were running for president you'd never be able to review everyones ideas and policies. Also the voting would very divided, allowing a significant possibility for an extremist to come into power. McCain, i'm not sure about, mainly because i don't know enough about him yet. I don't know how right wing he's prepared to go, what his views on the economy are... and i think he's very pro-war right? I could be wrong on that, but at the moment there's nothing about him i like. The campaigning started early but that's not the problem. The problem is you have to pay a huge amount of money to run for political office. Being a respected political figure is not enough, you have to be a millionaire and have the support of big-business. What you end up with is a President who has sold-themselves out to the media, the oil industry and the Zionists. Think about what would happen if running for political office cost absolutely nothing and all you needed was the respect of your political colleagues. Campaign ads and tours would be funded from a government kitty, where each candidate gets an equal and fair share. Makes sense right? Sometimes capitalism isn't the be all and end all.

Vote Ron Paul for a non-intervention foreign policy... among other things.

I'm not sure he will lose voters, because he may well gain democrat votes as compensation while the republican voters settle with the better of two evils. Ron Paul is improving by about a percentage point each month in the polls. What i can't understand is why Guiliani, McCain and Romney are doing so well. Are the people who vote for them robots who don't look beyond a name they have heard about in the media? It's weird how a well-known name is all it takes to get a winning percentage of the votes, and it highlights how important media coverage is. I wonder how certain names get highlighted for no apparent reason... Of course Guiliani has that 9/11 Mayor of New York thing to fall back on, but that means absolutely nothing. McCain just seems to get stories about him left right and centre, or at least he did while i was in America. Romney i hadn't even heard off until a few weeks ago. We don't get a choice anymore. This election could well end up as Clinton vs Guiliani if the opinion polls are anything to go by, and if thats the case then you can wave America good-bye because democracy is dead.

Many people (such as myself) consider abortion and stem-cell research to be irrelevent and over-blown issues, hence i would vote for Ron Paul even though i disagree with him on those points. Also, many republicans appear to disagree with the war, with the opinion polls showing such a large degree of national disagreement. Lastly, people can be single minded on one issue such as abortion without caring about the war-stance. Your point is valid though, he doesn't appear to be a common republican. Ron Paul's reply would be something like the following: "The founding fathers advised a foreign policy of non-intervention. The republican party has a history of non-intervention and were typically put into office to end the wars that the democrats had started. The true republican is against war." So in his opinion he is the most republican candidate standing. The changing face of politics isn't exactly pre-requisite knowledge for the right to vote though is it.

I agree that all the candidates know about it. However, i'm of the mind that nearly all the candidates don't want to do anything about it, as this economic system helps the rich. Isn't it funny how all the people doing well in the polls are multi-millionaires? Makes you wonder how they got to this point of popularity doesn't it.