29 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayLike baking a cake, say? No, you'd have to start over using a new set ingredients.
If you have a mixture of ingredients to make something, and if you mix them wrong you lose
them, because they turn into something else. Would having more time help you, if it is not
done right the first time?
But the ocean wasn't ruined or used up when the first proto-cells or whatever failed to survive. And the dead cells merely dissolved and re-joined the ocean. The sun would still be shining, the tides would still flow and the ocean soup of raw material would still be available. The dice get rolled again.
Does that make any sense for you? If not, why not?
29 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJaylol I suppose from your perspective that is possible.
... If your points are all read
these links, I have no idea what your views are, and for all I know you really don't have
any, instead you just googled something someone said, skimmed them thinking they
sound good, because you thought you could post them and end the discussion, instead of
showing you have not really thought about this stuff before.[/b]
29 May 17
Originally posted by apathistNew sets of ingredients, that begs the question. You believe you have a limitless amount,
Like baking a cake, say? No, you'd have to start over using a new set ingredients.
But the ocean wasn't ruined or used up when the first proto-cells or whatever failed to survive. And the dead cells merely dissolved and re-joined the ocean. The sun would still be shining, the tides would still flow and the ocean soup of raw material would still be available. The dice get rolled again.
Does that make any sense for you? If not, why not?
that will show up in the right place, under the right conditions? Why do you think that?
29 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayWait a minute. I'll address your questions after we deal with your accusation here.
New sets of ingredients, that begs the question. ...
What question did I beg? Where did I use circular reasoning by assuming my conclusion in a premise of my argument? I merely answered your question! And I started doing so with a question mark, so that if I misunderstood the question I obviously was asking for clarification.
You aren't making any sense, and frankly I suspect you don't know what 'begging the question' means. I'd link to an explanation of that fallacy, except well you know.
29 May 17
Originally posted by apathistAssuming you get another chance is a huge assumption. You have any justification for that? The follow up is always going be once a life has started what makes you think nothing would kill it off shortly after starting?
Wait a minute. I'll address your questions after we deal with your accusation here.
What question did I beg? Where did I use circular reasoning by assuming my conclusion in a premise of my argument? I merely answered your question! And I started doing so with a question mark, so that if I misunderstood the question I obviously was asking for clarificati ...[text shortened]... 'begging the question' means. I'd link to an explanation of that fallacy, except well you know.
29 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayThe relevant exchange went like this:
Assuming you get another chance is a huge assumption.
Kelly :If you have a mixture of ingredients to make something, and if you mix them wrong you lose
them, because they turn into something else. Would having more time help you, if it is not
done right the first time?
Like baking a cake, say? No, you'd have to start over using a new set ingredients.
Kelly :New sets of ingredients, that begs the question.
apathist: What question did I beg?
Kelly :Assuming you get another chance is a huge assumption.
Okay, let me clarify my answer to your question that started this exchange.
If you have a mixture of ingredients to make something, and if you mix them wrong you lose
them, because they turn into something else. Would having more time help you, if it is not
done right the first time?
Like baking a cake, say? No, having more time would not help, if it is not
done right the first time.
30 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy be specific, you mention the word more than most.
Where have I mistakenly evoked evil, please be specific.
You do remember me saying that 'evil' people are simply ignorant. Remember that? Who is it that said I was mistaken ? It was you. You said evil was real and that I was deluded. Always trying to drag us down ..
"with our thoughts we create the world" , by someone ..
30 May 17
Originally posted by apathistIs it any good? Worth seeing on the big screen?
If knowledge must be absolute, then you're right. But then we don't know if we are really alive and on earth! We could be a virtual simulation in a machine (or the dream of a butterfly!) and the 'real reality' is entirely different then we think. The old brain-in-a-jar or the Matrix philosophy problem. Fun stuff!
Your second point is unlikely to be true, but then I just saw Kong Skull Island.
30 May 17
Originally posted by sonshipYeah I get it. Your trying to change the language again. Good luck with that. I've tried. 🙂After all your bluster you fail to see the connection others have with their own beliefs.
We respect your Christianity ,
Oh, the [b]"ANITY" thing.
1.) Did I say I had Christianity ?
2.) Did I say the Christianity I have you should respect.
I've been talking about Christ. The word "Christianity" creates no warm fuzzy i ...[text shortened]... problem is that all of us, the rest of us, have fallen so far below normality into abnormality.[/b]