Why have you suddenly changed your own previously stated definition of agnosticism? "Fan: agnostic =One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." When it suits... what? What point are you trying to make? Utterly wrong. I've always stated that abiogenesis is currently a hypothesis that's not fully supported by evidence. Because both of them claim to have made studies and the data from those studies is unavailable. Krege's actually completed countered by previous studies, but you still believe his empty, unsubstantiated claims. Still no link to his data, I see. Why am I not surprised? Why bring what up? More bigoted garbage. Any sign of that scripture yet, Fan? Finally realised that it doesn't exist? Go pick up an English copy of the Quran and it'll have something similar. Quran.com has multiple different "versions" where there are differences of opinion about how to translate or interpret certain passages. The same is true of the Bible. You name call and insult people all the time! You're immensely intolerant and fanatical, too! How can you possibly be this hypocritical? Truly astounding! Have a look at how people react to you on here, Fan. You're a laughing stock. Most windows are less transparent than you are.
The spped of light has been broken, you asked me to prove it, I have, stop crying and nit-picking. It's nw only a matter of time and technology before they do it with something with mass. No doubt 500 years ago you would've been trying to contradict Copernicus.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Why don't you ladies just have a dual? "God" is not a topic people should treat with contempt or simply disregard, because as a logical construction it's symptomatic of animal behaviour. A dog, for instance, looks at his master who can feed him, exercise him when necessary, scold him and show affection for him, and reasonably you could imagine this dog thinking his master is "God". Prehistoric man and Latin American societies similarly looked up at the Sun which provides much of the necessary components of life and understood it as a powerful being, or "God". Philosophically it's actually more complex a thought than morally superior atheists tend to think. God is an all powerful entity beyond comprehension, and science has yet to comprehend that much, and so religion exists. My contention is that God does not exist as a "caring" entity (Being rationally unsupportable), but as a powerful force that should be visible to Science. By this I mean something which provides the impetus for the fundamental start-point of everything. In that eventuality, the question of "God" comes down to whether Religious people are willing to worship something that doesn't currently affect their existence, and whether Science deems "God" an efficient label (I mean who cares what we call that force? The Sexy Particle? The Homeless Man's Dog In Suspiciously Good Health Force? God seems as relevant as anything given it's literal definition). Ultimately, though, deciphering the science is only part of the process, because as with any practical investigation, first comes the objective analysis and then comes subjective interpretation and bullshit. Religious people have faith that God exists. Science has faith it'll prove that God doesn't exist. I have faith that both Science and Religion benefit from the uncertainty.
Spot on with both comments, PNEawf. In response to Miggins' Copernicus comment, I don't hold the view that any of the current scientific theories are set in stone. They are the best that we currently have. If they're shown to be wrong, then we've learned something new and we've progressed. That's not a bad thing, so why would I be opposed to it?
You're not talking about the CERN/Gran Sasso facility experiment, are you? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-of-light-experiment-was-wrong-after-all.html http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/27676-cern-admits-anomaly-in-neut http://www.thejournal.ie/cern-admit...dont-travel-faster-than-light-478849-Jun2012/ If it's some other experiment where they're proved FTL then I apologise.
Which one is it? Can't be arsed trawling through page after page of mostly nonsense (present company excepted, of course!)
This one: http://gizmodo.com/5908206/did-scientists-really-just-break-the-speed-of-light http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/07/faster_than_light_quantum/
Thanks, but I can see why it wasn't very widely reported. Only Americans could find a "loophole" in quantum physics
Your comprehension skills are failing you again, Fan. It's impossible to disprove a claim of an invisible, intangible, supernatural deity that lives outside of time and space and doesn't affect reality ≠ One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. If something doesn't affect reality, then it's effectively non-existent, so it can be treated as such and dismissed. That definition doesn't fit any of the god claims that say that their god can affect reality, so it's not applicable to them. Their god should be detectable, either directly or by observing the affect that they have on reality. I don't believe that it's impossible to know whether or not there is a god. I'm not an agnostic. What have I ever used the multiverse theory to prove? Regardless of the lack of truth in that claim, they're not comparable, anyway. It may be possible to detect other universes, if they exist, whereas solipsism is undetectable by it's very nature. Abiogenesis does address the beginning of life. I also mentioned creation doing the same. What part of that suggested that I ascribed to either? I was pointing out another of the many, many faults in your thinking about evolution, which you know, as it was a reply to this claim: Fan: "I believe in evolution too, believe it or not from religious scriptures however i have found the evolution theory as a way to explain 'creation' far too unbelieveable I further clarified it in my next comment, as you repeated yourself, in trying to suggest that evolution fails to deal with the creation of life with this: "I agree evolution is a fact, everything 'evolves'. Evolution doesnt/isnt the answer to the beginning of life. " Which lead me to point out that it isn't part of the theory at all. "Evolution is a fact and it doesn't attempt to deal with the beginning of life. Neither does the theory of relativity. It's not supposed to deal with it." Not only are you wrong, but you know that you're wrong. Very dishonest. It is the most plausible explanation that I've heard and it's still a barely tested theory. It's been recreated to some extent in labs, but it still needs a lot of work. No other hypothesis even has that, though. No, I didn't. What info?! You admit that he hasn't published any yourself in that post! He made claims in various languages, providing no data to back any of it up and then ran away to hide amongst his fellow holocaust deniers. You still believe him, though and you've yet to explain why he failed to find the disturbances mentioned in the Polish survey, for one. A claim with at least equal merit to that of Krege, who's already contradicted by a ton of evidence, which you dismiss because...? Why bring the Jews up? Because your holocaust denial and your denial of that denial shows that you're in... denial! It's a glaring example of your religious bigotry clouding your judgement and your choice to believe in faith over evidence. You didn't give me a reference. You linked to a neo-Nazi site. Where does this claim feature in scripture? Until you've proven that, any further claims are irrelevant. Same thing. As you well know, there's no way to tell if the Quran today is the same as the original. Bigotry. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. You should actually change your profile name to that, Fan. Trying to call me intolerant when you would like to see various people put to death is hilarious, though! Wasn't it you saying that you hate homosexuality earlier in this thread! Hate the Jews, hate the gays, hate the British, hate the Americans, want to see people killed for various reasons, yet I'm intolerant! Laughing stock!
your views change like the British weather One minute you are an atheist, claiming that atheism is ''the rejection of any claims for the existence of god or gods.'' next minute you completely change your tune to ''I didn't claim that god doesn't exist'' You tell me all about Krege and how he released his preliminary findings in German and French. That he is an air-traffic controller, his work was funded by the Adelaide Institute, and that his work was published in the Journal of Historical Review next minute you want proof of Kreges work You bring up sturdy colls, even though I had already mentioned her. telling me that there had been Scans with ground penetrating radar done by a qualified archaeologist on the site recently. adding Oops! as if you had provided some infallable evidence. Whereas her story is no different to Kreges yet you are willing to take her version on abiogenesis, I was the one who told you it was a hypothesis. as for this gem ''You didn't give me a reference. You linked to a neo-Nazi site.'' You have tried claiming I hadnt responded or given you an answer. Now you are saying I gave you a link. Proving I DID provide a reference/response. Now maybe you would care to answer the questions I asked you on the other thread. You know the ones you 'ducked' and latched onto this, and continue to do so. You can try and duck and squirm with your name calling and and missing out chunks of what I have said and focussing in on the odd comment here and there out of context Its as I said enough rope and you have hung yourself. Heres another one for you. You say I am anti semite usually. Well look up the definition of the word semite and I am more of a semite than the majority of Jews killed in the holocaust and those in Israel today
