more emotional crap. 1. Science can not prove there is no creator - true or false. 2. jem never said that science proves there is a God like the God in the bible - true or false. 3. Therefore sprstpd is illogical - true or false. 4. In fact when commenting on the existence of a creator jem cites the research of top scientists - but does not say the universe is designed only that some top scientists say it appears designed. True or False 5. On other threads jem gave the names and quotes of these top scientists - true or false. 6. therefore vhehn is either full of shit or illogical - true or false.
no. the church extracts wealth from the lower classes and distributes it to the powerful catholic church leaders. hardly socialist.
Wow - I better concede to such a powerful argument. Perhaps you would like to cite it? If I recall it was not Stu but some other poster who said he said he sent a letter to Susskind and he said the author complemented him on his grasp of the issues. He offered that as vindication. But, when questioned the poster did not even say that he addressed the issue we were discussing. by the way from the same physics world article cited above. So Weinberg set out to see if any bigger value would prevent life. The answer, it turned out, did not have anything to do with molecular chemistry or the stability of the solar system. Weinberg found that if L were just an order of magnitude bigger than 10-120, no galaxies, stars or planets would have formed. His anthropic arguments not only provided a limit on L, they also give some idea of its expected value. In 1992 he wrote, "Thus if such a cosmological constant is confirmed by observation, it will be reasonable to infer that our own existence plays an important role in explaining why the universe is the way it is." Even sceptics had to take notice, therefore, when recent astrophysical observations indicated that L is, in fact, non-zero and has just about the value Weinberg predicted. To avoid any intelligent-design connotations, however, there is still one missing ingredient: the "multiverse" or, as Susskind likes to call it, the "megaverse". According to a popular but still controversial version of "cosmic inflation", due to Andre Linde and others, there is not just one Big Bang but a whole series of bubble universes that are continuously being created. If we combine this with M-theory, every kind of universe permitted by the landscape will eventually come into existence. This is called the "populated landscape". ======== see that based on a nobel prize winners theory - to avoid intelligent design connotations you must add the idea of trillions and trillions of universes.
here is a link to 2 and half minute video by suskind on the subject. the end is the critical part. http://bastardlogic.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/susskind-intelligent-design/ straight from the horses mouth. He states at the very end that we have a very large universe with many environments and that only a small fraction of those universes are capable of sustaining life. And that we live in that small fractions of the universe that looks as though it were intelligently designed. Get it - you anti science atheists out there. If there is one universe we are in it and it looks spectacularly designed. But if there are an almost infinite amount of universes or "environments" we can not make the design inference. -- If you do further research you will see there is no proof of those other environments. they are only conjecture.
Ah, the Catholic church: Worships Mary (even though they claim not to). Have people pray to saints, even though the scripture says only God should . Ther isn't a single clear instance in scripture where believers pray to dead people rather than to God. Have people ask dead saints to pray for them. There isn't a single clear instance in scripture do this. Pick saints, even though the biblical definition of saints are all those who truly believe, not venerated dead people who are associated with miracles. The Inquisition. Angry that people like Galileo observed the Earth was not the center of everything. Nowhere in scripture is the Earth claimed as the center. Selling of indulgences/ The church needs money. Cough it up, and you go to heaven! Umm, where was that in scripture? Still think works is (the) key to salvation, even though the scripture clearly says "it is by grace you are saved, and not of works, so that none should boast." Works are the thankful response of a true believer for God's grace. Veneration of statues, even though in the old testament (and new), God's anger was obvious at people who worshiped things made of stone, wood or otherwise by human hands. Not to mention a lot of unscriptural actions by the church throughout history. Crusades, anyone?
thats not christianity. its paulanity. Christianity or Paulianity; Christianity's rich Pagan Heritage Paul never met Jesus in his life. In his early life before his 'self-professed' Christianity, his name was Saul and he used to be a persecutor of the Christians. On the road to Damascus, while on assignment to harass the Christians (after Jesus had left the world) according to his own claim, he saw a vision of Christ, after which, he claimed, that Jesus gave him the authority of teaching in his name. Paul's vision and it's record in the New Testament Paul's vision, containing his claim of being appointed a messenger of Jesus, is recorded at least three times in the New Testament; ACTS 9:3-7, ACTS 22:6-9, and ACTS 26:14. The description each time is different though, with contradictory details. In any court of law, in any civilized country, these claims would be discarded as being falsifications. However, over 1200 million Christians accept the claim unquestionably. This claim led to the developement of a whole new religion. A religion that wasn't preached or taught by Jesus, but INVENTED by Paul. Let's look at the descriptions of Paul's vision. http://www.angelfire.com/ca/Paulianity/pagan.html
the first prophet of the mormons also starts /w a vision, not sure abt other religions, oh way, i'm getting a vision ...