Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
题目: Re: If you predict the outcome of a horse race, is the prediction a 'fake' if the outcome is not as you predicted?
Iamon lyme: Different matter.
"that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is."
Then explain what you understand, or think you do.
"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."
But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??
Rather now, it's more of a process... including parts that break the normal rules of physics (re lightspeed.. the universe can expand faster than it) ...anti matter/matter annihilation, clumping of hydrogen causing the first stars to form... and then die giving birth to the heavier elements we all are made of.
It's a beautifully simple process on the large scale :))
题目: Re: If you predict the outcome of a horse race, is the prediction a 'fake' if the outcome is not as you predicted?
(V): "Then explain what you understand, or think you do."
Why? If I'm right or wrong, either way it doesn't matter. I've been asking you questions because I didn't understand your position. I even told you that was what I was doing, so what's the problem? Was I not supposed to understand?
"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."
"But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??"
It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy. But even after being proven true by scientific evidence, the kalam argument is still being debated. Why? No one had previously argued against the first statement, so what's left to debate?
The first and second statements can be debated, and the second has been proven true by science, so that only leaves the first statement open to criticism. There's no point in arguing with the third statement, because it is only a conclusion derived from the first two.