Search results for query: *

The team we haven't beaten for 10 looooong years, who are in good form on their own dungheap, on a Friday night where we have regularly embarrassed our fans with our inept performances. This is Richmond we are talking about here. And who has talked about premierships?

Yeah, like the fans they have great passion for their club, but unlike a jaded, passion-free franchise who tank every third year to ensure, with the big $ they have from being a virtual monopoly, that they are a regular contender.

I'm with the OP. Like the team, like the idea of them getting their older brigade of delists to help out for a while. I respect Sheeds and Williams as coaches. The jumper is attractive and I live in the area. Go Giants, exept when playing the Tiges! Suns, meh!

Thanks for agreeing that my position is not a controversial one. Does the Bible really purport to be 100% correct? It does claim to be inspired by God and give man Gods requirements to know him, in that area it does claim to be 100% correct, I'm not sure about any other. As far as I am aware...

So you would not accept the evidence I posted as indicating the divinity of Jesus?

lol, physics is a (broad) area of scientific study, not a 'method'. Cosmology is a branch of physics which I posted about a few pages ago. This is also not an experimental method. Carbon Dating is an experimental method which has only a minor application in understanding geology or evolution and...

If we were confining ourselves to Radiocarbon dating the Geological Column would come to a screaming halt 50K years ago! Anyway other radiometric techniques used are U-Th, K-AR and Rb-Sr among others. I agree that these are genuine experimental techniques which have produced repeatable results...

Physics Cosmology Carbon Dating Uranium/Lead Dating Fission Track Dating DNA Testing Molecular Gene sequencing Bio-Mechanics Gas spectrometer Analysis You are elephant hurling. You haven't a clue how any of these things support your case but they sound good in a post. I asked for you to...

OK this is how I see it: 1. He was prophesied about detail. At the time he came people were looking for him. 2. He did numerous miraculous signs. Even outside the Bible he was known as a miracle worker. 3. He rose from the dead 4. Despite an unpromising beginning he left a vast legacy (ie the...

You don't have to list them all. Just one or two would suffice. I stand in awe at the magnificence of your intellect. Really? So inference is not part of the scientific method? in·fer·ence(nfr-ns) n. 1. a. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or...

The point here was simply that I did not invent the term, which I seem to be accused of. I'm glad that you made sure you bolded reproducable experimental observations. What experiment(s) lead scientists to devise the Standard Geological column? What experiment lead paleotologists to tell us...

OK there is a continuum between the true experimental science and a historical science. Most sciences have elements of both. Cosmology is like that. We can directly observe things like the reshifting of the stars which increases with distance, the cosmic background radiation and the lumpiness in...

Of course there is evidence, otherwise it would not be called a science. But what tests under controlled conditions are being performed? These are observations. Inferences are then made about how, when and where the organism lived which are not immedately apparent from looking at their...

Thanks for clearing that up. I think what got lost was the context of my statement that not all sciences operate by reproducable experimental observations. Windy said that the ressurection is not directly observable so it is out of court re 'reproducible observations'. So I countered by...

Are you guys trying to tell me prior to my post, that you had never heard the term 'historical science'? You sure have your knickers in a twist about something anyway, although it is hard to figure out what. My posts are as plain as I could make them.

This is a testable hypothesis. Let's say God proved his existance by doing things like this. What would you expect to find?

Fine, but historical sciences rely on careful observations of the natural world fitted to a model. If the model makes accurate predictions it is strengthened otherwise it is modified. They don't rely on experimentation to make their claims. In the experimental sciences models are also used but...

I replied to this but the system lost it. Sorry. Anyway to summarise: If a scientist found experimental evidence of God he would have to accept it assuming God was the best explanation. Historical science is a legitimate term. I made a similar argument to WLC re the teapot. It is a...

lol whether or not you take me seriously is of little interest to me TBH. Why should I take you seriously? As far as I can see you are adding nothing to the debate on this thread merely making superficial quips. I explained what I was talking about in my response to Windy, above.

Eh? I just took your response to it's logical conclusion. If you are rejecting repeatable, observational evidence as a 'delusion' then you are rejecting all science. That's what science is! Ok, how do you know this stuff you believe is true and not a delusion? Your condecending manner is...

You are being irrational here you can't both accept testable, repeatable facts and not accept them when you feel like it. Do you accept the testable, repeatable findings of science or are these delusions too? Do you realise that some sciences do not produce testable repeatable results - eg...

The teapot is supposed to be a rationale for Atheists not to defend their belief in non-existance of God - because 'you can't prove a negative'. Your argument here makes no sense. If you can conclude rationally that there is no teapot, then you can be a strong teapot atheist, like me. Thus you...

Hey, you two elephant hurlers (MJ Raving & Windy), I don't suppose you could contain the length of your posts? I'm sure they are very interesting but they are waaaay too long for the average punter to digest. BTW I'm surprised the athiests are not prepared to defend Russell's teapot. Am I then...

Isn't the teapot supposed to be out past the orbit of Jupiter? OK then logically: 1. Teapots are man made - for the specific purpose of drinking tea. 2. Drinking tea from a pot in space is impossible. Thus noone would deliberately bring one. 3. Not many man made spacecraft have gone that far...

Tough gig! Don't do it unless you love kids and have a thick skin. I have been in 15 years and am now getting out and going mining! Great to hear that so many love it. I never did, the classroom was always a chore for me. I actually enjoyed teaching most when I was doing a 0.5 load and admin for...

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God? Yes it does, design. Something or someone intelligent designed the universe to contain life. Speculation? Whoever designed the universe must have designed every aspect of it including all the...

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God? Here is the fine tuning argument just to clarify: The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design It is not due to law or chance Therefore, the fine-tuning is...

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God? Now you have simply dodged my question and put forward this ludicrous bare assertion. How would we be able to exist in a universe which had failed to go because gravity was too strong. What about...

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God? OK I see, I thought as it referred back to a and b it must be a conclusion. It is a worse argument than I thought. How could anyone be sure what an omnipotent God might do? Why would he follow the...

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God? Well, go on, enlighten me!