Creation vs. Evolution
Thursday, September 11, 2003 by grayhaze | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I thought I'd pre-empt this discussion before Kona's comment in the other thread sparked it off there. There is concrete proof that we evolved, but no proof that we were created. What's you're opinion, and why?
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
To quote Phoebe from Friends: "I guess the real question is who put those fossils there and why?"
 |
|
Page 52 of 56 | |
|
|---|
bakerstreet
Reply #1022 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:07 PM
Reply #1022 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:07 PM
R3fr said:
"...my arguement still stands that nothing can come from nothing (I believe that God has always been here, but in evolution, there is no God, so thats why I say this). Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence nor can it slowly form into existence (referring to 'the beginning')."
The statement makes no sense. Did you mean that "Something can't come from Nothing?" I would suggest a smidgen of Physics and Chemistry, so at the very least you'll have the vocabulary to express yourself. I think, though, you said pretty much the same thing hundreds of posts back, and I answered it. If you are gonna talk in absolutes, i.e. this or that CAN'T happen, at least look into what you are talking about, and present something apparent to all that will plead your case.
In the meantime, we'll say your OPINION is that "Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence ...". Don't pretend that you are making any kind of argument, though. You are just telling us absolutes and expecting us to believe. I'm personally not willing to take your word for it.
"...my arguement still stands that nothing can come from nothing (I believe that God has always been here, but in evolution, there is no God, so thats why I say this). Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence nor can it slowly form into existence (referring to 'the beginning')."
The statement makes no sense. Did you mean that "Something can't come from Nothing?" I would suggest a smidgen of Physics and Chemistry, so at the very least you'll have the vocabulary to express yourself. I think, though, you said pretty much the same thing hundreds of posts back, and I answered it. If you are gonna talk in absolutes, i.e. this or that CAN'T happen, at least look into what you are talking about, and present something apparent to all that will plead your case.
In the meantime, we'll say your OPINION is that "Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence ...". Don't pretend that you are making any kind of argument, though. You are just telling us absolutes and expecting us to believe. I'm personally not willing to take your word for it.
MadIce
Reply #1023 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:23 PM
The consequences are perfectly clear. If that is enforced upon a child by the parents then these parents should be charged with murder. Because that is what it is.
Nah. I spoke to Moses on the phone the other day and he said: "I am so sorry, MadIce. I made a booboo. I never thought medical science would advance in such a way these days. But I have found the answer to save those poor JWs. We offer blood from lugworms soon. Maybe those nasty JWs can be saved afterall. We provided that to stop them from manslaughter in the future. Clever, hey?."
http://madice.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=345
Reply #1023 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:23 PM
| Yes, if you accept blood there will be consequences, but you'll not be aware of these if you're dead. |
The consequences are perfectly clear. If that is enforced upon a child by the parents then these parents should be charged with murder. Because that is what it is.
| I think Moses got it right when he wrote it. That someone elses blood isn't to be in anothers body. |
Nah. I spoke to Moses on the phone the other day and he said: "I am so sorry, MadIce. I made a booboo. I never thought medical science would advance in such a way these days. But I have found the answer to save those poor JWs. We offer blood from lugworms soon. Maybe those nasty JWs can be saved afterall. We provided that to stop them from manslaughter in the future. Clever, hey?."
http://madice.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=345
kona0197
Reply #1024 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:47 PM
Reply #1024 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 7:47 PM
I know it is off topic but I wanted to add that the JW have rewritten the bible just like the mormons have.
Anyways....
Anyways....
r3fr
Reply #1025 Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:47 AM
Reply #1025 Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:47 AM
The statement makes no sense. Did you mean that "Something can't come from Nothing?" I would suggest a smidgen of Physics and Chemistry, so at the very least you'll have the vocabulary to express yourself. I think, though, you said pretty much the same thing hundreds of posts back, and I answered it. If you are gonna talk in absolutes, i.e. this or that CAN'T happen, at least look into what you are talking about, and present something apparent to all that will plead your case.
In the meantime, we'll say your OPINION is that "Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence ...". Don't pretend that you are making any kind of argument, though. You are just telling us absolutes and expecting us to believe. I'm personally not willing to take your word for it.
Like I said in my post, I was referring to 'the beginning' of evolution. Something, anything, any atom, any form of energy cannot just appear here. You or anyone else cannot prove it can, because there is no such thing as a controlled environment to test this. And even if there were, it wouldn't be correct because the scientists are the one doing the experiement. Its not doing it by itself. Any experiments done by scientists are done by them. The experiment isn't done by itself.
You can believe whatever you want, Baker. I respect your decision.
The parents believe it is in the best interest of the child. We put God first.
Moses was inspired by God to write what he wrote (2 Timothy 3:16). Also, due to modern advances in medical technology we don't have to take blood.
I see nearly the same things in my Bible that are in other Bibles. Maybe in other Bibles the name of God (Psalm 83:18) is taken out, or in 1 or 2 Bibles a Scripture is put in and that my Bible uses common language so that it is easier to understand (no thou, thy, shalt and so on), but other than those, my Bible is like any other.
I thought the Mormans made a completely new book?
As for the belief of the 'fiery hell.' Perhaps you're thinking of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the book of Luke at 16:19-31.
Note what is said about the rich man. Why was he tormented in Hades? What had he done? Jesus did not say that the rich man led a degraded life, did he? All that Jesus said was that the man was rich, dressed well and feasted sumptuously. Does such conduct of itself merit punishment by torment? True, a serious failing is implied in the attitude of the rich man toward the beggar Lazarus. The rich man lacked compassion for him. But did that failing distinguish him sufficiently from Lazarus?
Think about what Jesus said concerning Lazarus. Is there anything in the account to lead us to conclude that, if the situation had been reversed, Lazarus would have been a compassionate man? Do we read that Lazarus built up a record of fine works with God, leading to his coming into the “bosom position of Abraham,” that is, a position of divine favor? Jesus did not say that. He merely described Lazarus as a sickly beggar.
So is it logical to conclude that all sickly beggars will receive divine blessings at death, whereas all rich men will go to a place of conscious torment? Not at all. Begging is of itself no mark of God’s favor. To the contrary, the Bible contains the prayerful expression: “Give me neither poverty nor riches.” (Proverbs 30:8) And of his time, King David wrote: “I have not seen anyone righteous left entirely, nor his offspring looking for bread.”—Psalm 37:25.
If we take Jesus’ words literally, we would have to draw still other conclusions that would make the illustration strange indeed. These include: That those enjoying celestial happiness are in position to see and speak to those suffering torment in Hades. That the water adhering to one’s fingertip is not evaporated by the fire of Hades. And, that, although the torment of Hades is great, a mere drop of water would bring relief to the sufferer.
Taken literally, do these things sound reasonable to you? Or, do you feel, instead, that what Jesus said was not meant to be taken literally? Is there any way to be sure?
Examine the context. To whom was Jesus talking? At Luke 16:14 we are told: “Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him.”
Since Jesus spoke in the hearing of the Pharisees, was he relating an actual case or was he simply using an illustration? Concerning Jesus’ method of teaching the crowds, we read: “Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them.” (Matthew 13:34) Accordingly, the account about the rich man and Lazarus must be an illustration.
This illustration was evidently directed to the Pharisees. As a class they were like the rich man. They loved money, as well as prominence and flattering titles. Jesus said of them: “All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes of their garments. They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men.”—Matthew 23:5-7.
The Pharisees looked down on others, especially on tax collectors, harlots and others having the reputation of being sinners. (Luke 18:11, 12) On one occasion when officers, sent to arrest Jesus, came back empty-handed because of having been impressed by his teaching, the Pharisees spoke up: “You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.”—John 7:47-49.
Hence, in the parable the beggar Lazarus well represents those humble persons whom the Pharisees despised but who repented and became followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus showed that these despised sinners, upon repenting, would gain a position of divine favor, whereas the Pharisees and other prominent religious leaders as a class would lose out. He said: “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God. For John came to you in a way of righteousness, but you did not believe him. However, the tax collectors and the harlots believed him, and you, although you saw this, did not feel regret afterwards so as to believe him.”—Matthew 21:31, 32.
In the meantime, we'll say your OPINION is that "Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence ...". Don't pretend that you are making any kind of argument, though. You are just telling us absolutes and expecting us to believe. I'm personally not willing to take your word for it.
Like I said in my post, I was referring to 'the beginning' of evolution. Something, anything, any atom, any form of energy cannot just appear here. You or anyone else cannot prove it can, because there is no such thing as a controlled environment to test this. And even if there were, it wouldn't be correct because the scientists are the one doing the experiement. Its not doing it by itself. Any experiments done by scientists are done by them. The experiment isn't done by itself.
You can believe whatever you want, Baker. I respect your decision.
| The consequences are perfectly clear. If that is enforced upon a child by the parents then these parents should be charged with murder. Because that is what it is. |
The parents believe it is in the best interest of the child. We put God first.
| Nah. I spoke to Moses on the phone the other day and he said: "I am so sorry, MadIce. I made a booboo. I never thought medical science would advance in such a way these days. But I have found the answer to save those poor JWs. We offer blood from lugworms soon. Maybe those nasty JWs can be saved afterall. We provided that to stop them from manslaughter in the future. Clever, hey?." |
Moses was inspired by God to write what he wrote (2 Timothy 3:16). Also, due to modern advances in medical technology we don't have to take blood.
| I know it is off topic but I wanted to add that the JW have rewritten the bible just like the mormons have. |
I see nearly the same things in my Bible that are in other Bibles. Maybe in other Bibles the name of God (Psalm 83:18) is taken out, or in 1 or 2 Bibles a Scripture is put in and that my Bible uses common language so that it is easier to understand (no thou, thy, shalt and so on), but other than those, my Bible is like any other.
I thought the Mormans made a completely new book?
As for the belief of the 'fiery hell.' Perhaps you're thinking of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the book of Luke at 16:19-31.
Note what is said about the rich man. Why was he tormented in Hades? What had he done? Jesus did not say that the rich man led a degraded life, did he? All that Jesus said was that the man was rich, dressed well and feasted sumptuously. Does such conduct of itself merit punishment by torment? True, a serious failing is implied in the attitude of the rich man toward the beggar Lazarus. The rich man lacked compassion for him. But did that failing distinguish him sufficiently from Lazarus?
Think about what Jesus said concerning Lazarus. Is there anything in the account to lead us to conclude that, if the situation had been reversed, Lazarus would have been a compassionate man? Do we read that Lazarus built up a record of fine works with God, leading to his coming into the “bosom position of Abraham,” that is, a position of divine favor? Jesus did not say that. He merely described Lazarus as a sickly beggar.
So is it logical to conclude that all sickly beggars will receive divine blessings at death, whereas all rich men will go to a place of conscious torment? Not at all. Begging is of itself no mark of God’s favor. To the contrary, the Bible contains the prayerful expression: “Give me neither poverty nor riches.” (Proverbs 30:8) And of his time, King David wrote: “I have not seen anyone righteous left entirely, nor his offspring looking for bread.”—Psalm 37:25.
If we take Jesus’ words literally, we would have to draw still other conclusions that would make the illustration strange indeed. These include: That those enjoying celestial happiness are in position to see and speak to those suffering torment in Hades. That the water adhering to one’s fingertip is not evaporated by the fire of Hades. And, that, although the torment of Hades is great, a mere drop of water would bring relief to the sufferer.
Taken literally, do these things sound reasonable to you? Or, do you feel, instead, that what Jesus said was not meant to be taken literally? Is there any way to be sure?
Examine the context. To whom was Jesus talking? At Luke 16:14 we are told: “Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him.”
Since Jesus spoke in the hearing of the Pharisees, was he relating an actual case or was he simply using an illustration? Concerning Jesus’ method of teaching the crowds, we read: “Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them.” (Matthew 13:34) Accordingly, the account about the rich man and Lazarus must be an illustration.
This illustration was evidently directed to the Pharisees. As a class they were like the rich man. They loved money, as well as prominence and flattering titles. Jesus said of them: “All the works they do they do to be viewed by men; for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards, and enlarge the fringes of their garments. They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men.”—Matthew 23:5-7.
The Pharisees looked down on others, especially on tax collectors, harlots and others having the reputation of being sinners. (Luke 18:11, 12) On one occasion when officers, sent to arrest Jesus, came back empty-handed because of having been impressed by his teaching, the Pharisees spoke up: “You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.”—John 7:47-49.
Hence, in the parable the beggar Lazarus well represents those humble persons whom the Pharisees despised but who repented and became followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus showed that these despised sinners, upon repenting, would gain a position of divine favor, whereas the Pharisees and other prominent religious leaders as a class would lose out. He said: “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God. For John came to you in a way of righteousness, but you did not believe him. However, the tax collectors and the harlots believed him, and you, although you saw this, did not feel regret afterwards so as to believe him.”—Matthew 21:31, 32.
joetheblow
Reply #1026 Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:55 AM
I wonder how I did that??? I was wondering why the thread was all goofy.
I closed all the tags...
oh well.
Ok Jafo, watch how I keep the thread on topic
------------------
How is that when they are quoting from the Bible, saying how clear (the same references you make mind you... the blood thing, and others) it is what God is saying?
How is it a doctrine of man when it is all coming from the Bible? (By the way, I think some churches have doctrines but guess what? It is also from the Bible)
Honestly, you are not helping to proof that creation is the way it happened. It would seem that your saying that JW view is correct, not that IT IS correct.
Has anyone believed in the Bible and read all of it and come to the very same conclusions???? How many? 2? 200? 1,000,000? Were you taught what you believe or would you have come to the same conclusions as your church? when you take notes and meditate and pray are you opposing the opinion of your church or re-enforcing it?
Both science and religion fall under the care of human beings. Mistakes will be made. Evolution is more believable because of you can more or less see it, the science behind it is OPEN to scrutiny and you can technically (if not physically) check it out yourself.
So evolution had more of a 'heads up' in a sense while religion or faith does not 'open' itself for discussion.
For example, taking to fellow believers about if God has a name is not discussing a fundamental issue of your beliefs.
Another example is why the family members shunned and non or ex believers under the ideal that speaking to them will 'turn you' while going door to door is a challenge to your faith??? We are not talking Job (biblical Job) level challenge here. No flames or pain or yada yada... its just a family member. granted you have feelings for them but come on. Talk about not taking the challenge
Of course that is my opinion that is OPEN for discussion.
Isn't there any possibility that the group who came or comes to the conclusion that this is what the Bible means (using the Bible as the doctrine.. their only doctrine)? Can they fall prey to Attribution Theory? Halo Effect? Can there beliefs of what the Bible is saying become Case Law? (Case Law meaning that while the actual law does not cover that directly is if inferred to mean this)
Isn't there a possibility that God left those who lead to think for themselves? If so, then can it be true that what the conclusion is, is in fact wrong?
Same goes for science...
Can't you honestly say that 10 people can not get 4 different meanings on "Thou shall NOT kill"?
What if someone said I can kill you because you are spiritually killing me? That is a big threat deserving a counter action to stop it (some force that will equal the opposing force in order to stop it from hurting you)
Talk about perception...
I can agree that evolution has many merits and is highly likely it is true. Do I have faith in it? Nope. Creation? Yes. Can I prove it?... well look at the Bible... is this the same Bible that I can get different meanings from depending on my ability to read a specific language (English, Spanish, French *Bakerstreet cringes* whatever language)???
I think if you study topography, multimedia, ad design, architecture, or being a lawyer you would understand that reading comprehension, attitude, gender, audience, location, age and basics on how the human eye reads words and image placement
Oh and, of course, Organizational Behavior.
Reply #1026 Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:55 AM
| #1020 by Admin Jafo - 11/5/2003 5:52:16 PM joetheblow...I had to delete your post....it'd fragged the thread page badly.I posted what I could of it again for you... |
I wonder how I did that??? I was wondering why the thread was all goofy.
I closed all the tags...
oh well.
Ok Jafo, watch how I keep the thread on topic
------------------
| SO?The Church and those who supposedly read the Bible and all of those in authority said it did.They don't follow the Bible, they follow doctrines of man. |
How is that when they are quoting from the Bible, saying how clear (the same references you make mind you... the blood thing, and others) it is what God is saying?
How is it a doctrine of man when it is all coming from the Bible? (By the way, I think some churches have doctrines but guess what? It is also from the Bible)
Honestly, you are not helping to proof that creation is the way it happened. It would seem that your saying that JW view is correct, not that IT IS correct.
Has anyone believed in the Bible and read all of it and come to the very same conclusions???? How many? 2? 200? 1,000,000? Were you taught what you believe or would you have come to the same conclusions as your church? when you take notes and meditate and pray are you opposing the opinion of your church or re-enforcing it?
Both science and religion fall under the care of human beings. Mistakes will be made. Evolution is more believable because of you can more or less see it, the science behind it is OPEN to scrutiny and you can technically (if not physically) check it out yourself.
So evolution had more of a 'heads up' in a sense while religion or faith does not 'open' itself for discussion.
For example, taking to fellow believers about if God has a name is not discussing a fundamental issue of your beliefs.
Another example is why the family members shunned and non or ex believers under the ideal that speaking to them will 'turn you' while going door to door is a challenge to your faith??? We are not talking Job (biblical Job) level challenge here. No flames or pain or yada yada... its just a family member. granted you have feelings for them but come on. Talk about not taking the challenge
Of course that is my opinion that is OPEN for discussion.
Isn't there any possibility that the group who came or comes to the conclusion that this is what the Bible means (using the Bible as the doctrine.. their only doctrine)? Can they fall prey to Attribution Theory? Halo Effect? Can there beliefs of what the Bible is saying become Case Law? (Case Law meaning that while the actual law does not cover that directly is if inferred to mean this)
Isn't there a possibility that God left those who lead to think for themselves? If so, then can it be true that what the conclusion is, is in fact wrong?
Same goes for science...
Can't you honestly say that 10 people can not get 4 different meanings on "Thou shall NOT kill"?
What if someone said I can kill you because you are spiritually killing me? That is a big threat deserving a counter action to stop it (some force that will equal the opposing force in order to stop it from hurting you)
Talk about perception...
I can agree that evolution has many merits and is highly likely it is true. Do I have faith in it? Nope. Creation? Yes. Can I prove it?... well look at the Bible... is this the same Bible that I can get different meanings from depending on my ability to read a specific language (English, Spanish, French *Bakerstreet cringes* whatever language)???
I think if you study topography, multimedia, ad design, architecture, or being a lawyer you would understand that reading comprehension, attitude, gender, audience, location, age and basics on how the human eye reads words and image placement
Oh and, of course, Organizational Behavior.
kona0197
Reply #1027 Thursday, November 6, 2003 2:17 AM
Reply #1027 Thursday, November 6, 2003 2:17 AM
r3fr:
FYI I have a copy of the JW (watchtower) bible and lots of sciptures have been changed comparded to a NIV or KJV.
The sooner you realize that JW is a cult the better off you will be.
But of course you are entitled to believe whatever you want.
As for the Mormons, They use the KJV but they modified it to suit their religion. I should know, I was a mormon once and did alot of reading.
FYI I have a copy of the JW (watchtower) bible and lots of sciptures have been changed comparded to a NIV or KJV.
The sooner you realize that JW is a cult the better off you will be.
But of course you are entitled to believe whatever you want.
As for the Mormons, They use the KJV but they modified it to suit their religion. I should know, I was a mormon once and did alot of reading.
MadIce
Reply #1028 Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:18 AM
Yes. I have the same reasoning with the existence of a god. If there is one then how did it appear. Don't come with your fake bible text to prove this, because it is just as empty without the proof. Try being creative (forgive the word) and use reasoning.
Three reasons why it cannot be that way: 1) The bible is just a book written by man and manupulated by men and relogious leaders in just about every century of its history. So, if used in any argument as proof it will not hold much ground. 2) If there is a god that loves humans it will show, so the god will not be as ugly as you make it sound. 3) Moses told me that he made a booboo, remember?
In some cases new techniques may have been introduced that prevent the use of blood transfusion, but for the majority of cases it is still needed. Medical science has every reason to minimize the use of blood transfusion, because of its shortage. Still it has not found alternatives enough. So, refusal of using blood transfusion for children will be murder. Or do you rather like the term postnatal abortion? Or maybe involuntary euthanasia will make it less sound like first degree murder.
We can't in a discussion where people doubt his existence. Therefore quoting bible text as proof is silly.
[Message Edited]
Reply #1028 Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:18 AM
| Like I said in my post, I was referring to 'the beginning' of evolution. Something, anything, any atom, any form of energy cannot just appear here. You or anyone else cannot prove it can, because there is no such thing as a controlled environment to test this. |
Yes. I have the same reasoning with the existence of a god. If there is one then how did it appear. Don't come with your fake bible text to prove this, because it is just as empty without the proof. Try being creative (forgive the word) and use reasoning.
| Moses was inspired by God to write what he wrote (2 Timothy 3:16). |
Three reasons why it cannot be that way: 1) The bible is just a book written by man and manupulated by men and relogious leaders in just about every century of its history. So, if used in any argument as proof it will not hold much ground. 2) If there is a god that loves humans it will show, so the god will not be as ugly as you make it sound. 3) Moses told me that he made a booboo, remember?
| Also, due to modern advances in medical technology we don't have to take blood. |
In some cases new techniques may have been introduced that prevent the use of blood transfusion, but for the majority of cases it is still needed. Medical science has every reason to minimize the use of blood transfusion, because of its shortage. Still it has not found alternatives enough. So, refusal of using blood transfusion for children will be murder. Or do you rather like the term postnatal abortion? Or maybe involuntary euthanasia will make it less sound like first degree murder.
| If we take Jesus’ words literally. ... |
We can't in a discussion where people doubt his existence. Therefore quoting bible text as proof is silly.
[Message Edited]
Jafo
Reply #1029 Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:21 AM
Reply #1029 Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:21 AM
Joe.....ya gotta be careful when highlighting text for 'quote'....dragging over must have added parts of the site-skin images and done the dastardly on the layout....
Jafo
Reply #1030 Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:23 AM
Reply #1030 Thursday, November 6, 2003 3:23 AM
Matthijs...no it's criminal negligence, not murder...perhaps manslaughter...
MadIce
Reply #1031 Thursday, November 6, 2003 4:15 AM
Reply #1031 Thursday, November 6, 2003 4:15 AM
Oh, sorry Paul. I read the following on the web:
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
I thought it described it well. If it is only manslaughter then I think it is OK to deny the child blood transfusion to save his or her life, right?
[Message Edited]
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
I thought it described it well. If it is only manslaughter then I think it is OK to deny the child blood transfusion to save his or her life, right?
[Message Edited]
Jafo
Reply #1032 Thursday, November 6, 2003 4:38 AM
Reply #1032 Thursday, November 6, 2003 4:38 AM
It's not an 'intent to kill' but merely a decision not to help save them....not entirely the same thing.
Call it the second law of robotics, not the first....
MadIce
Reply #1033 Thursday, November 6, 2003 5:21 AM
Reply #1033 Thursday, November 6, 2003 5:21 AM
Hehe. Ah. Asimov.
That man is holy to me. He must be right.
That man is holy to me. He must be right.
MadIce
Reply #1034 Thursday, November 6, 2003 5:36 AM
Reply #1034 Thursday, November 6, 2003 5:36 AM
0) A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Second law? #1? (I included the zeroeth law).
Anyway. The JW can always tell that he/she didn't want his child to be sick, but because of his/her conviction cannot give that treatment. That's probably what you mean.
Anyway: Life sentence. Bang! Next case.
1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Second law? #1? (I included the zeroeth law).
Anyway. The JW can always tell that he/she didn't want his child to be sick, but because of his/her conviction cannot give that treatment. That's probably what you mean.
Anyway: Life sentence. Bang! Next case.
Jafo
Reply #1035 Thursday, November 6, 2003 6:37 AM
Reply #1035 Thursday, November 6, 2003 6:37 AM
No...the Zero-th law came later....originally there were only 3...
bakerstreet
Reply #1036 Thursday, November 6, 2003 8:29 AM
Reply #1036 Thursday, November 6, 2003 8:29 AM
R3fr: Your 'rules' are a bastardization of the Uncertainty Principle, and basically untrue. Scientists can predict phenomena remotely based upon what they already know. In 1905, Einstein had no way of observing the phenomenon he used to theorize Relativity. Most discoveries are made on paper, long before they are proven. Nuclear fission, for instance, was theorized, mathematically proven, and then later created with few unforeseen surprises, and all the time using material that we had no tangible way of objectively observing.
Please don't forget that something had to come from nothing in YOUR model as well. You just handily stick God just before the last thing you can explain. Your model starts with God, and an Atheist who adheres to the Big Band theory has the primordial point. Don't pretend your explanation is any more scientifically complete.
If you can doctor-up your model of reality enough to accept an eternal, intangible God, then it is pig-headedly obtuse to not allow science to simply, honestly, say that they don't know yet. Unless you know all the possibilities, you can't define 'impossibility', only 'improbability'. You don't know everything, so you can't say "Nothing can come from Nothing" any more than an Atheist can say "There is no God". History's gutter runs thick with people who 'knew' things to be true and were proven wrong ten minutes later. The problem is all this prideful, false 'knowing'.
I strongly suggest, again, that you read a bit of chemistry ( and see how much in nature is 'self-assembling' ) and physics (Quantum Mechanics in particular), so that you'll have some means of entering into a discussion with someone other than a biblical literalist. Your absolutes and scripture just don't prove anything to anyone that doesn't already agree with you.
[Message Edited]
Please don't forget that something had to come from nothing in YOUR model as well. You just handily stick God just before the last thing you can explain. Your model starts with God, and an Atheist who adheres to the Big Band theory has the primordial point. Don't pretend your explanation is any more scientifically complete.
If you can doctor-up your model of reality enough to accept an eternal, intangible God, then it is pig-headedly obtuse to not allow science to simply, honestly, say that they don't know yet. Unless you know all the possibilities, you can't define 'impossibility', only 'improbability'. You don't know everything, so you can't say "Nothing can come from Nothing" any more than an Atheist can say "There is no God". History's gutter runs thick with people who 'knew' things to be true and were proven wrong ten minutes later. The problem is all this prideful, false 'knowing'.
I strongly suggest, again, that you read a bit of chemistry ( and see how much in nature is 'self-assembling' ) and physics (Quantum Mechanics in particular), so that you'll have some means of entering into a discussion with someone other than a biblical literalist. Your absolutes and scripture just don't prove anything to anyone that doesn't already agree with you.
[Message Edited]
IPlural
Reply #1037 Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:06 AM
Reply #1037 Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:06 AM
I think it was either MIT magazine or Scientific America which ran a Cover item on the topic of Quantum Mechanics and someone showing it is feasible to create our reality mathematically.
caption read "Could we be nothing more than a Holographic Projection?" or something close to it.
kinda neat, good read too, have to look and see if I can find an online url to the story and post it...
caption read "Could we be nothing more than a Holographic Projection?" or something close to it.
kinda neat, good read too, have to look and see if I can find an online url to the story and post it...
Aleatoric
Reply #1038 Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:10 AM
Guess the Glenn Miller advocates finally advanced their version of cosmology
r3fr, Baker is correct. Furthermore, there is (to the best of our knowledge) no place where nothing (in the classical sense of the word) exists. Even if *every* bit of extant matter was expunged from the entire universe, leaving only a vacuum, there is still not nothing. The vacuum seethes with energy, and that energy can be measured (look up the Casimir effect, for one).
We can postulate that the universe existed for some untold amount of time (being a relatively meaningless concept in that context) as nothing but a vacuum. Given the properties of vacuum, there is an extremely small, but statistically significant chance that an energy 'ripple' of sufficient size would occur and initiate the formation of our universe and all in it. There are other theories, as well, quite a few of which allow for the formation of the universe from what *appears* to be nothing.
Reply #1038 Thursday, November 6, 2003 10:10 AM
| Big Band theory |
Guess the Glenn Miller advocates finally advanced their version of cosmology
r3fr, Baker is correct. Furthermore, there is (to the best of our knowledge) no place where nothing (in the classical sense of the word) exists. Even if *every* bit of extant matter was expunged from the entire universe, leaving only a vacuum, there is still not nothing. The vacuum seethes with energy, and that energy can be measured (look up the Casimir effect, for one).
We can postulate that the universe existed for some untold amount of time (being a relatively meaningless concept in that context) as nothing but a vacuum. Given the properties of vacuum, there is an extremely small, but statistically significant chance that an energy 'ripple' of sufficient size would occur and initiate the formation of our universe and all in it. There are other theories, as well, quite a few of which allow for the formation of the universe from what *appears* to be nothing.
MadIce
Reply #1039 Thursday, November 6, 2003 11:58 AM
Reply #1039 Thursday, November 6, 2003 11:58 AM
Don't worry about that typo, Baker. I caught myself twice correcting it in my posts.
bakerstreet
Reply #1040 Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:12 PM
Reply #1040 Thursday, November 6, 2003 12:12 PM
Typo? What typo? You obviously aren't aware of the Cult of Swing! In the beginning there was the beat... 
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 52 of 56 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1021 Wednesday, November 5, 2003 6:22 PM
Are you contradicting yourself?
No actually, i'm not. I've stated earlier that hell (hades, sheol) is actually the grave, so it is a place, but it has no activity. I invite you to do some research on the orgins of the word 'hell.'
The Church and those who supposedly read the Bible and all of those in authority said it did.
They don't follow the Bible, they follow doctrines of man.
Can I admit that the Bible can be misread? Yes, I can admit it and it has happened. Proof of this lies in the many religions today.
THAT is where humanity goes wrong.
That is why we must pray to God for guidence to gain accurate knowledge. Regular reading of your Bible will help also.
As for getting back on topic, my arguement still stands that nothing can come from nothing (I believe that God has always been here, but in evolution, there is no God, so thats why I say this). Negative matter nor positive matter cannot just jump into existence nor can it slowly form into existence (referring to 'the beginning').