Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
nakedemperor said:Oh. wow. The half dozen people who actually post on this board are fanatics.
and you base this on what? I'm not a fanatic of any religous perspective.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nakedemperor said:Oh. wow. The half dozen people who actually post on this board are fanatics.
deaddude said:First impermanence does negate the reality of anything as such in any time reference other than the Absolute Present and the Deffinite Past.
Second give me an example of an absolute truth. "We can never be absolutely certain of anything" is paradoxical because it uses two mutualy exclucive absolutes paradoxical. Omnipotent entities like the Chistian God are paradoxical be cause unlimited power cannot surpass its self and is therefore limited, so if paradoxical situations cannot be true, as you stipulate in your second point, than the existence of and omnipotent being cannot be true.
Third the probability of any one religion being absolutely correct is infintessimal.
Bullypulpit said:First, No argument there, although the Buddha's statement , "All this is empty..." is often miscronstrued to mean such.
Second, to state a thing with absolute certainty implies omniscience...something, I think I can say with reasonable certainty, none of us is possessed of.
Third, If one's favorite deity is that petty, is he/she/it truly worthy of adoration? Sounds far too human to be divine.
nakedemperor said:Oh. wow. The half dozen people who actually post on this board are fanatics.
rtwngAvngr said:I support basic environmental protections, but the wacko core of the environmentalist movement are really just socialists, looking for excuses to attack capitalism and economic growth. They are willing to pass laws restricting land devlopment for use by humans simply because some arbitrary species deemed an indicator species is inconvenienced. This is anti human.
Kathianne said:RWA, what makes you think YOU have common sense? :shocked: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :shocked:
rtwngAvngr said:Are you saying I don't have common sense? The kyoto agreement preferred by the U.N. ecomaniacs is eugenics through economic restriction on first world(western) nations. You know it's true.
nakedemperor said:ENVIRONMENTALISM IS ANTI-HUMAN.
....Rejecting evolution requires him to repudiate the core tenets** of entire fields of study... Such as biochemistry, genetics,ecology, paleontology, anatomy, physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, history, and archaeology.....
nakedemperor said:...... I'm not so hard on Bush's lack of environmental protection record, but I guess more so on his protection of pollution practices.
nakedemperor said:I was talking about the self-defeating proposition that "environmentalism is anti-human", and the fanatical defense of that statement.
Anti-environmentalism is anti-humans-having-a-livable-habitat-to-be-humans-in.
Talk about ignorance. Think of all the other species that humans have eliminated from existance. Think of the disappearing ozone layer. Think of deforestation. All these things have real, adverse effects on humanity, and to KNOW (not believe) that human technology can keep up with population growth and provide the energy, oxygen, food, etc. for the world population to sustain itself is a concept which I can only describe as fanatical.
Does ANYONE ELSE with any common sense want to critique the statement "environmentalism is anti-human"?
popefumanchu said:It is the ultimate hubris to think that we could possibly be powerful and evil enough to destroy the planet.
While it is true that we have enough nuclear weapons to render the earth uninhabitable by humans, it is incorrect to say that we can char and blacken the entire planet. One must remember that while a large Thermonuclear Bomb can level the greater part of a city, that is nothing compared to earth's total land surface area of 57,500,000 square miles. That would take QUITE the bomb! (Sorry to be nit-picky!)deaddude said:We (the United States) have enough Nuclear weapons to turn the entire planet into a charred, blackened orb of radioactive glass.
The fact that creatures evolve is not a theory, small incomplex organisms, with short life cycles evolve very quickly, and have evolved under laboratory conditions. This is a result of adaptation.
Evolution becomes theoretical only when it is used to explain the development of life on earth. Could a higher power have said let there be life? Absolutely. Is it possible that lightning hit a bunch of proteins and a single celled organism sprang forth? You bet. Is it possible that a higher power said let there be life and so struck a bunch of proteins with lightning creating a single celled organism? Sure why not.
deaddude said:Those tiny changes you refer too are an evolution, and what I was referring to. Those tiny changes build up.
No I cannot provide evidence as to whether or not humanity evolved from monkeys. However you, ajwps, are 98.5% genetically identical to a chimp you are also 98.5% identical to your girl friend, it just seems to me to be too close of a relation for chimps and humans not to have a common ancestor.