crowTrobot
-
Content Count
4,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by crowTrobot
-
-
waiting for spademan to photoshop this.
-
not disagreeing with you but i wouldn't use the word religion. the bare hypothesis of an undetectable god would be unfalsifiable, but human religionsare falsifiable for other reasons.Oh yeah, we agree on that point, I was jumping off from that to make the point that religion is an unfalsifiable theory. -
he's a little more famous for the last samurai - the guy who owned tom cruise in stick fighting.Just realized where I recognize super Asian temple master guy from. If any of you have seen the movie Sunshine, he is the captain of Icarus II. -
it always was absurdGreat, the least-interesting storyline is now also absurd -
in this reality aaron is still <3 years old and was last seen being left with his grandmother. i would think even the crazy producers would consider it too much of a plot contrivance at this point to have an older version of aaron show up on the island.more likely jacob's "ghost" appearing as a young version of himself with bloody arms to induce a guilt trip in MiB, or possibly a third supernatural entity supervising the conflict between jacob/MiB - island incarnate or something.Jacob/Aaron -
and desmond was. or at least something that looked like desmond.... the hot sister wasn't on the plane -
boone said shannon stayed in austrailia. this timeline apparently branched in 1977 so nobodyis required to be on the same flight. presumably the plot won't have walt on the plane eithersince they would have had to use a different actor.in seats that weren't shown -
i am, one that jacob needed to "die" in order to accomplish.Unless you're saying this is a new trick -
thought it was odd that the lead-in review show referred to jacob as "spiritual". so did jacob inhabit sayid's dead body?
-
as a promotional event they showed the first hour of season 6 outside on a movie screen in hawaii last friday. a crummy videoof the event including the full first episode is (at least at the moment) online at -http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4339891the actual episode (6.01) starts at about the 1:35 mark. i wasn't gonna watch it all because the audio is so poor,but it sucked me in. great start.
including awesome scene where bram and his boys go into the statue foot to confront fake locke and get killed by smokie
-
heh never thought of that. it does sound exactly like a bond theme song. the intro would even fitthe transition into opening credits.The best choice clearly is Bjork.Listen to Bachelorette if you don't believe me. -
might make your head explode.i watched the seaon 5 finale the other night and it made me wonder why i've spent 5 years watching this. crappy acting and a ridiculous storyline.oh well, i guess one more season won't kill me -
start getting used to using the word ALThttp://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2010/01/omg-...f-lost-season-6OMG FIRST 4 MINUTES OF ‘LOST’ SEASON 6!! -
wouldn't get my hopes up. it took a post-series movie to rescue gilligan.I hope they get rescued at the end of this season! -
i'd rather go to hell than worship radiohead
-
accepted as reasonably possible, not as true. string "theory" is a good example. many scientists consider it untestable, but not unreasonable because it has explanatory power.So some theories can still be accepted even though they are not testable?
no not like evolution : )Like evolution? -
i was just trying to demonstrate that the notion is unreasonable (as well as untestable).I apologize for trying to simplify the argument. When I say "looks old" I mean all the evidence points to it being old. -
nobody said that. what is being said is something cannot be a scientific theory unless it is testable.we tend to accept (as possible) or reject untestable assertions based on whether we think they fit known patterns of explanation or not.The whole argument that something cannot be true unless it can be proven false -
both your Adam and BBT analogies sell the evidence short. the earth doesn't just "look" old. it (and the surrounding universe) contain mountains of intricate evidence of a continuous history of countless specific interconnected geologic/cosmic events spanning billions of years, and nothing at all that would give the slightest indication that the earth/universe are young. to say god could have faked all that is no less unscientific and silly than postulating undectable pulling elves instead of gravity.How would you prove that Benjamin Button was actually old and not that he just looked old? -
by itself it doesn't confirm, explain, (JJJ's words) or specifically predict the evidence that exists in any sense that can be related to science. it doesn't even qualify as a theory - it's just a bare vague assertion crafted to be unfalsifiable. by virtue of being unreasonable it's not even that really. it's nothing. it's saying there's no such thing as gravity - just undetectable elves pulling down on everything. it IS ignoring science.it does predict exactly the same evidence -- which is the only reason the stupid "theory" even exists.
no i'm stating that specifying a motive is necessary for the idea to even qualify as a possible explanation.you're proposing an additional constraint -
i was just countering JJJ's analogy because it seemed to imply that the evidence is open to interpretation. but what you say above is what i'm disputing. the hypothesis of god creating a young earth absolutely does not predict the same evidence. the evidence would have had to be willfully planted by god for motives unrelated to creation.I think what JJJ is getting at, and why the black paint analogy doesn't seem great, is that the 'god created an old earth recently' conjecture is not actually inconsistent with the evidence -- it predicts exactly the same evidence as an actual old earth. -
obviously this thread and my comments are meant to address belief in literal young-earth creationism, not belief in god.Of course if God made the earth brand new, then by your own definition He is FORCING you to believe in Him.
this is only about freedom to accept or reject a certain ambiguous human-derived interpretation of genesis 1, not god or christianity.I mean if God made the earth some way, and they say since it wasn't made the way they know it should be made then God must be trying to trick them, that leaves them open to the equal and opposite conclusion that God wanted them to have the freedom to choose whether to receive Him or reject Him. -
the picture created by the evidence is solid black, not blurry. there is no ambiguity - no room at all for philosophical interpretation.Meh. -
evidence of aging is not necessary for the earth to function or support life. god would have had to go out of his way to craft that evidence.I don't know what you're saying here; you're going to have to dumb it down a bit for me.
it's more like if your friend painted a black picture and told you it's really white. believing it's white is going to require a certain amount of ignoring evidence.I don't really get the "God is tricking people" argument.Well, that's not entirely true. Not true in the sense that I actually do get it.But if your friend painted a picture and said, "Here is my painting of a sunrise through the smog; it might look like a blurry sunset, but really it's a sunrise," would you say he is trying to trick you or that he's trying to enlighten you about any potential confusion?
Religion And Intelligence
in Religion
Posted