Jump to content

BTGBullseye

Member
  • Posts

    19,552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BTGBullseye

  1. Can't rate... Too many complaints when I do. Don't take it personally.

     

    I can put my finger on it... It's Will Ferrel playing the cowbell for the song "Don't Fear the Reaper"... Can't get much more awesome than that without being Chuck Norris, or me.

  2. regardless of what the original intention was I still think separation of the 2 is necessary since any of each influencing the other will only lead to problems. Until the world learns to play nice I think it's for the better.

    About 90% of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments... This country was founded on the principles of Christianity and freedom, not government and secularism.

     

    Tell us about your game... It can't hurt to tell some of the details, especially since it would count as a copyright if anyone comes out with something similar before you release, and then sues you to stop production. (prior art really kills law suits)

  3. Not a welt, and there is absolutely no sensation from it at all... (the nerves are either completely numb, or gone) It's got two 1/8" holes about 1/4" deep... Not a wolf spider though, since I don't have any here.

    Now it's a mostly healed crater... I'll get a cropped (for visual safety) picture of it next time I change the bandage. (probly tomorrow)

     

    OT: Getting ready to think about deciding what sort of video I may or may not want to watch, if I decide to do that over playing StarCraft 2, if I don't decide to play something else, after I get a refill on my drink.

  4. Hah, I guess your belief is entirely irrelevant to the argument of whether it's a theory or a fact / how a theory is applied.

    Maybe a better question would be Do you believe that it's wrong?

    I believe the way that science is currently taught in almost all schools is wrong. I personally do believe the "Big Bang" theory itself, but not the other stuff about evolution. (even Darwin agreed that macro-evolution wasn't what originated our species) I believe that many of the "scientists" that are working towards proving that there is no God are wrong in what they're doing. (not the attempt to prove God doesn't exist, but the lack of publishing any of the results that oppose their opinion; something a lot of "scientists" are now beginning to do)

     

    Is there such a word for describing the acceptance of something as a fact, without necessarily believing in it yourself?

    No, there isn't. And Googling the question comes up with articles asking why people don't believe in God, and why people don't believe in evolution.

     

    Meaning that, for all intents and purposes, you could happily accept a scientific model and work on it as an astrophysicist,

    but could not entirely believe in something that is as metaphysical or abstract without some kind of firsthand knowledge.

    Belief is not a prerequisite to be able to research a subject. Many scientists don't believe in God, but they can always research His signs. Some don't believe in the possibility of an infinite energy source, but there are quite a few of them looking into making it a reality. (and with quantum batteries, it's energy being made from apparently nowhere; an impossibility to our current understanding of the universe)

  5. Still needs to be separation of church and state, I think.

     

    Any action that favors a religion in any way other than to protect people's rights to their personal freedom of religion just should not happen. But that's just my own interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

    The reason that clause was put there in the first place was to protect religion from the state, not the state from the religion... Bear in mind that in England, the king was the head of the church, and anything he said, went. If he said that being Catholic was heretical, then it was. If he said that the priests of the church had to go fight in wars, they did. Government shouldn't have control over religion.

  6. How in the hell could any display of the Ten Commandments be considered secular?

    sec·u·lar
    ˈsekyələr/
    adjective
    adjective: secular
    
       1.
       denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

     

    It can't... But then again, secularity shouldn't rule the world... (like it's trying to do now)

     

    I went downstairs to get a drink and my mother had left something on a frying pan on the stove and there was fire coming from it. I said to my mother "I think it overcooked a bit because there's fire coming from it" and she came to the kitchen and then started yelling like "SHOULD I CALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHATS THE PHONE NUMBER" and then I got a lid from another pot and put it over the fire and it went out. I would have used the fire extinguisher but I forgot where it was.

    Nice... At least you saved yourself from wasting an extinguisher on something that didn't need it. (don't throw water on a grease fire either, it becomes a napalm explosion then)

  7. Trailers rarely if ever accurately represent the movie.

    Lets hope this is the case with this movie, aswell.

    I agree that the sliding down the mountain after a humvee part seemed horrible, but that final joke was quite good.

  8. Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact..

     

    This is also extraordinarily wrong.

     

    This may help a bit... assuming you can ignore whoever lied to you when they told you that the language is being redefined.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

     

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

     

    "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it."

     

    Key to all that is the "modern science" part... Not science in general, just modern science.

     

    "Modern uses of the word "theory" are derived from the original definition, but have taken on new shades of meaning, still based on the idea that a theory is a thoughtful and rational explanation of the general nature of things."

     

    "The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

     

    The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

     

    *Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

     

    the reason the "Big Bang" was originally postulated was solely to try and take God out of the equation

     

    Given that it's a fact ( :-) ) that the theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I fear that you may have fallen victim to some ideological brainwashing here...

     

    Regards

     

    Ah, see I missed that when they kept saying the other when I was in school. (blame the public school system for the mistake)

     

    Still, it's not fact yet.

     

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

     

    I notice nobody has actually asked if I believe in the "Big Bang" theory myself... lol

  9. Star Trek Into Darkness gets 3.5 references out of 4. Although, I'm not a huge ST fan (unlike some of my family members) so I'm not pissed off at changes (like the first movie did) but meh.

    My family is comprised of massive Star Trek fans... (that isn't in relation to our weight, well not entirely anyways) Considering the impossibility of getting the younger versions of the original actors, they did an amazing job with the new universe.

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.