Politics On Politics.

[mattsk8]

4 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

Cheating is morally wrong in pretty much every scenario. I'm not sure why the law needs to have anything to do with it beyond your marriage contract. By hurt, I meant physically. Though I'm not sure how to approach emotional abuse of a child. That's not physical, but I think many can agree that the worst case scenario emotional abuse of a child needs action. The other 'gray area' I can think of is threats of physical harm. But I could see the argument that it doesn't need to be regulated.

I bet if we dig deep enough, there's more gray areas. But my overall point is that law should be nearly nonexistent when it comes to legislating one's personal choices. I should have defined 'hurt or steal' as 'physically harm, restrict their freedom, or cause damage/loss to someone's property'.

Without thinking long and hard about it... I think I agree with you completely. The gray areas are definitely where things get dicey. "Restrict their freedom" can be a little far fetched too.

[Fudge_Brownie]

As in detain them against their will, or something similarly severe. Because I guess that technically isn't physical harm if you don't fight back. Or putting drugs in their drink. Arguably not physical harm, but you're basically restricting their actions. Unless you want to argue that the minuscule action the liver had to take was unwilling physical harm. Which seems a bit like a technicality, but it was unwilling so I guess that makes sense.

[Yellow95]

Damn fudgie.  Just say "gotcha last" and stop!

[Kevin.]

On 4/29/2016 at 9:23 PM, Rod'sT-5 said:

Have you noticed that everyone seems to have a inner sense of right and wrong. Where did that come from? For those that believe in the "Big Bang", maybe a piece of cosmic dust got mixed into the first cell.  How can a few inert particles lead to a moral compass?

 

 

an inner sense of right and wrong would be no different that humans and animals having instincts. Human babies know to suckle their mothers breasts, fish are born knowing how to swim, etc

On 5/2/2016 at 11:00 AM, mattsk8 said:

There's plenty in the Bible that I don't understand, I can admit that. But I don't need to understand how and why, and I can promise you that while you may think you might, you don't have any understanding of existence and creation either. The difference between you and I is that I trust God, and I believe the Bible is "the Word of God". When I read something that doesn't make sense to me, I... "Trust in the Lord with all my heart, and lean not on my own understanding"; rather than dream up excuses for how and why.

 

I believe in science, things that are proven. If you cannot provide concrete evidence for your beliefs then I cannot take them seriously. On a similar note, Evolution has been proven as fact and a theory is a proven scientific fact when used in that context

[mattsk8]

14 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

 

I believe in science, things that are proven. If you cannot provide concrete evidence for your beliefs then I cannot take them seriously. On a similar note, Evolution has been proven as fact and a theory is a proven scientific fact when used in that context

You say you believe in science, but you obviously have a very distorted interpretation of what science is. Every claim you made is baseless, you have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution is still a theory, explain to me how it's anything else or where they've proved this "fact". And before you tout more baseless things that you don't understand, you might want to study evolution vs adaptation; and once you do that you can try to come at me again with your "facts".

And regardless, even if evolution was used in creation... it still doesn't explain God away, He did say He created man from the dust of the Earth.

[Kevin.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

please read this, you are confusing the meaning of words

[theForgottenone]

22 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

please read this, you are confusing the meaning of words

Come on Kevin. I'm not into religious but quoting a wiki to provide fact is pretty lame and baseless. 

[mattsk8]

14 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

please read this, you are confusing the meaning of words

Right, that's the proof I needed... . Since you have such a wonderful grasp explain these things to me...

A. If mutations are the driving force behind evolution... and the "theory of evolution" is a fact (as you say)... then explain how the [fact] that mutations never increase information, they only decrease it... could possibly apply to "evolution" (look up the definition for "evolution"). In every study they've done, they've never been able to replicate any of what you're saying is a "fact". Explain how this is true "science".

B. Explain the total lack of examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. (This is a big one that's missing to actually substantiate your "fact".)

C. Spontaneous generation does not coincide with biology.

D. Another big one... the scientific method can only test existing data, it can't figure out origins. And I get "carbon dating"... but we discuss the flaws in that theoretical method too if you want. And that is where you have no understanding of what science actually is. I'd say if you claim to "believe in science", you should probably follow the rules behind it.

[Kevin.]

30 minutes ago, theForgottenone said:

Come on Kevin. I'm not into religious but quoting a wiki to provide fact is pretty lame and baseless. 

 

what source should I be using then?

[theForgottenone]

19 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

 

what source should I be using then?

I think everything just went over your head.

 

some credible source such as scientific research institution or even any accredit academic org would lend more credit then wiki. 

 

Nevermind,if it is posted on the internet then it must be true.

[Fudge_Brownie]

22 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

 

what source should I be using then?

Scoffing at wikipedia as a source is almost as dumb as using wikipedia not as a source, but as a response. You didn't use it as a citation, you were just like hey, here's an article. So what?

Broadly assuming wikipedia is a bad source stopped being cool in 2006.

[flyfishing3]

1 hour ago, mattsk8 said:

 

And regardless, even if evolution was used in creation... it still doesn't explain God away, He did say He created man from the dust of the Earth.

So do you believe in evolution? Or is the above your position? 

[mattsk8]

1 minute ago, flyfishing3 said:

So do you believe in evolution? Or is the above your position? 

I don't believe God works for evolution if that's what you're asking. If evolution is a reality, I believe it works for God (i.e. intelligent design). But, I don't believe in evolution as a whole. I believe bits and pieces of what they say (adaptation), but I don't believe Darwinism; there's way too many holes (as I explained in my earlier post).

Throw some legos in a ziploc bag and shake it up 7,000,000 times and let me know how many of the pieces lock perfectly together. And this would be a well over a zillion times more possible than "evolution". If you read into it you'll see that even atheist scientists are starting to realize how many holes are in the theory of evolution, so their new claim is aliens. Either way, you're still going to end at who designed... in the beginning.

[Kevin.]

Matt, have you had a chance to check out the TV series: Cosmos A Spacetime Odyssey? 

[mattsk8]

58 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

Matt, have you had a chance to check out the TV series: Cosmos A Spacetime Odyssey? 

I haven't seen it. Guessing it's based on Carl Sagan's The Cosmos, and I have read that.