The Creo Manual Now on TV

I am almost scared to ask about your 'evidence'.
But if it is 'subjective', then it's not very good evidence, is it?
Good evidence stands up to objective analysis.
'Bordering on objective' just doesn't cut it.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-01-2006 11:57 AM

I shouldn't have implied that sexual desires are a sin, they are not.
It's what you want in your heart, like lusting after a woman. It can be harmful to you, and your wife, if your married.For a long time I was under the impression that looking at porn is harmless. But I found out that it does affect how I treat woman. That's one example.It has nothing to do with morals, it is just life. Everything has a cause and effect.

Ok, Spock.

Every single bit of evidence you see in life, whether objective, or subjective is viewed through our puny little subjective minds.Prove love.

And your point is?I would say that some evidence is much better than other evidence and some minds are far less objective and far more puny than others.

I remember studying to re-sit exams so as to be able to go back to college after a less-that-glowing school career. I had to do physics and the text book seemed so...so....irreducibly complex. Stumbling across it 10 years later, I had to smile at the level of my ignorance then (save it Ringo )This video does raise a smile alright. Cheesy ain't the word. But there are simple-minded folk out there: both believers and non. You don't always need a hammer to crack a nut. If a banana suffices then fine.Folk can smile at their ignorance later on.

What knowledge qualifies that? Do you know how difficult it is do be simple?Don't kid yourself, and think that people who believe in God have puny minds. You seem to be putting yourself on some kind of platter, or pedestal. It will hurt when you fall from there.Surely this is not logical, or scientific thinking. One must remain open to all possibilities. I got something coming up for all you "logical thinkers".

Common sense. There is a continuum of evidenciary quality from 'possibly consistent' (with an explanation) to 'strongly conclusive'. I didn't say that.
Although I would say that religious organizations seem to gather up a lot more puny minds than do scientific organizations. The bar for participation is set a lot lower. No, one doesn't. There are a lot of 'possibilities' that are not worth considering.
The idea that a banana was designed by God for man's use, for example.
Pathetically implausible enough to be downright humorous for anyone with a bigger-than-shoe-size IQ.
Science may not have all the answers but it can quickly eliminate a lot of ridiculous possibilities that are not worth considering. We're on the edge of our chairs...

riVeRrat First, you define it.

Haha, common sense is subjective. You'll be sent to hell for saying that, and when you get there, you'll be stuck in a room full of bananas.
just kidding.But seriously, can you prove it's not true? Haha, you think your logical?

As noted in one of the links (I think it was), we KNOW who designed the banana. And we know they didn't pick fitting the hand as one of the criteria.Humans designed the banana shown in the film. It is, as shown there, very, very different from the natural banana. The banana shown in the film doesn't even have seeds; it can not reproduce on it's own.RR, you really shouldn't try to defend that film. It us utterly stupid from start to finish. It is really quite wonderfully so.

Live long and prosper.

How to prove ”love’:It should, in theory, be relatively simple to prove the existence of the emotion called love. You would need a large sample of people and you would need to wire them up so you can monitor, in real time, as many of their systems as possible. Pulse, Breathing, Sweating, Brain activity and more. In fact, the larger number of physiological traits you can monitor the better.Once you have them wired up you show them a set of images of various objects and you ask them via some kind of analogue feed back ( a dial would do) to indicate how much they love or hate what is shown in the image.Run this experiment with a large enough sample I Predict that you will final strong correlation between clearly discernable physiological states and the subject’s feedback.I.e. when the subject indicates a strong sense of love via the dial, (they see a picture of close family) then you will also see a set of readings that are clearly discernable from the set of readings you get when the subject indicates a strong hate for the object in the image. Call them response A and response B. Response C being no strong feeling either wayWith this data in hand, you should be able to predict the subjects dial input for any new image.This proves the existence of what we call love and makes it predictable. (i.e. you can predict if a subject believes they love or hate the subject of any particular image..)

That would be a waste of time, don't you think?
The entire concept has already been ridiculed to death. Yes. So where is this surprise you have in store for us 'logical' thinkers?

So is that a yes or a no? So what exactly is it? Provide evidence .from Wikepedia: {bold mine} You said:

I especially love when people will not call themsleves a liar.

​

I said:

If they did, would you beleive them?

​

You said:

I may be going out on a limb here, but I bet you everyone has lied at some point in their lives.

​

I am not saying that nobody has ever lied, or even that some people have never lied (excluding neurological disfunctions), I'm saying that nobody can admit to being a liar, because liars, by definition, lie.

​

Yes, really. If you live by logic thinking, and tangeble evidences, then why not just admit what you are, whats the big deal?

​

I was being cynical, "you are what you are" is reduntent because "you" cant be "not you", by definition.

​

OMG dude, in all your wit you couldn't figure this one out?
God is not concerned with time. He will look back on the events that took place in your life, and judge them real time. Liar.

​

I dont know what you meant by that, but what I was saying is that there is a big difference between telleing a lie and being a liar.
{My links cover it, its a matter of definition}

​

Shallow.

​

I'm not the one that uses things that he doesnt know about...:

I don't know about the whole banana thing

in an effort to sell stuff or convince people of stuff:

I have used it on telemarketers