Nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly three magi came to visit the baby Jesus, nor that they were kings, rode on camels, or that their names were Casper, Melchior and Balthazar. Matthew 2 has traditionally been combined with Isaiah 60:1–3. Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. 2For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. 3And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. Three magi are supposed because three gifts are described, and artistic depictions of the nativity have almost always depicted three magi since the 3rd century. The wise men in the biblical narrative did not visit on the day Jesus was born, but they saw Jesus as a child, in a house as many as two years afterwards (Matthew 2:11
You're saying that as if it means anything to what I said. What am I supposed to say? "Oh, he's right! Modern science DID stem from the philosophy of previous generations! I've been a fool! I guess there really is a grand plan!" Probably dead, due to the fact that we can split atoms.
A fatwā is a non-binding legal opinion issued by an Islamic scholar under Islamic law; as such, it is commonplace for fatwās from different authors to disagree. The popular misconception that the word means a death sentence probably stems from the fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran in 1989 regarding the author Salman Rushdie, who he stated had earned a death sentence for blasphemy. This event led to fatwās gaining widespread media attention in the West
Whereas, of course, you believe that GOD is the most creative and destructive serial killer in history. In case you missed the point of my original comment.
A penny dropped from the Empire State Building will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk. The terminal velocity of a falling penny is about 30–50 miles per hour (48–80 km/h), and the penny will not exceed that speed regardless of the height from which it is dropped. At that speed, its energy is not enough to penetrate a human skull or crack concrete, as demonstrated on an episode of MythBusters. As MythBusters noted, the Empire State Building is a particularly poor setting for this misconception, since its tapered shape would make it impossible to drop anything directly from the top to street level.
I used to love rounders. We played it in primary school before they made us play cricket once we hit 11. Baseball is boring, but it's got nothing on cricket, trust me.
How convenient! Lol Well since you and I both agree that evolution exists, what are we arguing? Reading back, I see you defending that abiogenesis is more scientific than theistic concepts, which is tripping me out. We come "full circle" with the argument. Do you or do you not think abiogenesis is more scientific than theistic views? Same here! You were the one that think creation belief is unscientific, yet fully support abiogenesis as truly scientific. And what started it all? You said "you must be able to observe it naturally". I guess it doesn't matter to the things you believe in huh? Are you saying there is zero evidence that God exists? Simple, you said "philosophy isn't science"
When an event with equally probable outcomes comes out the same way several times in succession, the other outcome is not more likely next time. For example, if a roulette ball ends up on black many times in a row, and not once on red (as reportedly happened 26 times on August 18, 1913, in the Monte Carlo Casino), the next ball is not more likely to land on red; red is not "due". For a fair wheel, neither is red less likely. This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality statistical independence holds, and red is just as likely or unlikely on the next spin as always—sometimes expressed as "the system has no memory". If the event is physically determined, and not perfectly random, the repeated outcome may be more likely. For example, a die that has rolled a six ten consecutive times might be loaded or controlled by hidden magnets, and would be more likely to roll another six.
Glass does not flow at room temperature as a high-viscosity liquid. Although glass shares some molecular properties found in liquids, glass at room temperature is an "amorphous solid" that only begins to flow above the glass transition temperature, though the exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among theorists and scientists. Panes of stained glass windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used at the time. Normally the thick end of glass would be installed at the bottom of the frame, but it is also common to find old windows where the thicker end has been installed to the sides or the top. No such distortion is observed in other glass objects, such as sculptures or optical instruments, that are of similar or even greater age. One researcher estimated in 1998 that for glass to actually flow at room temperatures would take many times the age of the earth.
I don't know what we're arguing. I was trying to get you to tell me why you think creationism is based in science, but you still won't. And yes, abiogenesis is a hypothesis based on observations using the scientific method. Creationism is not based on the scientific method. What is difficult to understand about that? Yes. I've said it over and over again. Sigh. I didn't say that. I already refuted this point, but your response was that I was divulging from the argument. Zero evidence using the scientific method, yes. It's not. The two fields may be related, but they are not the same.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od means of acquiring knowledge scientifically:the system of advancing knowledge by formulating a question, collecting data about it through observation and experiment, and testing a hypothetical answer. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument Classical argument Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. Eyewitness testimony Billions of people can testify that they have felt the presence of God. Interview 1,000 people in each region, religion and culture. Document the similarities of each testimony. Draw a conclusion on the common ideology and retest accordingly. Would you like more methods?
and then you dismiss us as anything special. Well I suppose that is a warning. Too bad you can't identify your team.
First of all, "feeling the presence of God" isn't eyewitness testimony. Even without being hyper-literal on the "eye" part, eyewitness testimony is based on the five senses, not the feels. Otherwise a murder trial could feature "eyewitness testimony" from a guy who "feels" that the defendant is guilty. Second of all, what millions or billions believe is empirical evidence...of what they believe. It's not empirical evidence that what they believe is true. In other words, this is empirical evidence in anthropology. If your interest was in how many people believe in god and what their experience in religion was, all of that would be great empirical evidence. If your interest is in "does a god exist?" then it isn't empirical evidence, any more than polling 9/11 conspiracy theorists is empirical evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
Go ahead and post more methods, because that one was pretty weak. I'll just let you read what Minstrel posted because that is spot on. In short, emotions are not a reliable indicator of factual circumstances. Also: the "classical argument" seems flawed. How do we know that the universe has a beginning? We can't see "before" the big bang, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a before. It just means that our observational tools aren't advanced enough. So we turn to philosophy.
Interesting... So have you seen and read every "empirical" evidence that you believe? Have you tested it yourself? If you had, you have a point. But the reality is, you are taking their word for it right? We talk of court... Well if someone provides a written testimony on a court case, you can strike it because you don't have the ability to cross examine the witness. And we talk of feeling... Well, psychology is a form of science. Many doctors use the emotions and feelings of their patients to diagnose them. So that isn't science?
I just responded to minstrel and I believe my response is good. And we are debating "scientific method". I just clearly refuted your claim it has no method. It doesn't mean what is more "logical". You can kick and scream all you want, but you are clearly wrong.
