LastPommerFan

Have you ever won anything on the back of your own ideas?

I'll go with Samson making the top six as a RW to start the season (meaning he will have at least the second most 5v5 minutes of any player playing primarily RW through thanksgiving) and scoring 50 pts this season.

Reading through this discussion, I think that you are both (smj and NS) writing of different things. SMJ appears to be searching for a descriptive truth, a faith that accurately describes the Nature of God and His interactions with the Creation. If these are events that occurred in the past, there can be only one truth. In this case, two in disagreement can agree to no longer jointly seek that descriptive truth, but they cannot honestly agree that both possibilities could be true. NS appears to be describing a prescriptive faith, a message from god that describes His desires for the Creation: the things we do that please Him. In this case, it is possible to disagree on the descriptive truths, and yet come to largely congruent prescriptions on how we should live our lives.

So, in Portland, Maine, one can get Live Lobster for $5/lb. Also, I got a free Counting Crows concert while waiting for a ferry at the old port. Also, everything is available in blueberry. Also, lobster is $5/lb.

All sorts of talent, and through 10 years, still no champions. :P

Evangelical churches are often built on the personality of a preacher, as opposed to older more enduring denominations with centuries (eg Lutherans) or millennia (Catholics) of theological development. It's not surprising to me that you find their positions inconsistent.

NS, do the apostles appear in the Qur'an? If so, what is their role in Islam? Also, Mary Magdalene appears in the Gospels more than most of the Apostles, does she appear in Islamic Texts? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ There is a very clear scripture basis for the Just War Theory as outline in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the Death Penalty it says the following: That last sentence was very recently emphasized by Pope Francis. In the case of Bin Laden, I think it is realistic that all of the requirements above were met. That his death was the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against his aggression. We are called to seek peace in all situations. This is not an excuse to ignore problems and dangers, but a challenge to find solutions that may be more complicated and difficult than the basic human instinct to solve problems with violence. If alternatives can not be found, and the bar is exceptionally high for this to be the case, then war and/or death can, in rare instances, be justified.

Statement #2 is correct, right? Our star is one of the younger of the Galaxy. It's possible that I'm conflating Galaxy age with star age, when they are separate things.

I follow you, my point is only that these people doing these things are a minority. Loud minorities often have outsized political voices. These people upset me as well. In general, there are plenty of people of faith who not only accept, but advance science.

The single most common denomination of any religion in this country essentially accepts the hands off after the Big Bang approach that you outline here. I would suggest that you are allowing a select minority of Christians who build crazy museums in Kentucky to color your entire perception of "people of faith". On another note, we should probably move this conversation to the theology thread, lest it get derailed tomorrow when the Donald inevitably does some thing awesome while on jury duty.

Thanks IKP. I knew you wouldn't let me down! Follow-up question: A common argument against the possibility of FTL travel goes as follows: 1. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy is essentially a statistical certainty. 2. We live on a very young star (4B years vs. 13B for the milky way) 3. If FTL travel were possible, we would have been contacted by an intelligent alien race with the capability for FTL travel. ... FTL travel is impossible. Does this argument stand up? what are the counter arguments?

I hope the Jays and Yanks just keep focusing on each other... No need to look behind you... Nothing to see there...

bump.

The bolded is essentially the Catholic position of free will. The idea that the rest of creation has a place in paradise is very different. I think we have a different thread for all of this, perhaps i will dig it up.

So, apparently, there was no "before" the Big Bang, because "before" implies time, and time itself was created by the Big Bang. this makes my head hurt badly.

BACK TO BACK NIGHTS WITH WALK-OFF HOME RUNS!!!

That's not how science works. You don't provide proof by examining the facts and then creating and interpretation of those facts. you create a theory that explains the facts, and then attempt to prove your own theory wrong.

Your admission is admirable but unnecessary. I seek not admiration, but truth.

I have no idea if it translates into firearms, but turkish machined part suppliers are considered second tier, right behind the US, Japan, and Germany. In line with places like South Korea and the Czech Republic. in other words, we don't get much of a discount, but expect perfect adherence to relatively tight specs.

O's-A's is MLB.tv free game of the day. Winner Winner Blue Crab Dinner.

He said it, I'm waiting on it being a letter from the USCCB or to hear it as a coordinated message on Sunday morning. Maybe tomorrow...

There is no proof of God. That is exactly the statement that science makes, and it's beautiful. I wish (and expect some change soon under Pope Frankie) the Catholic Church would make a stand and say, "Science is Real and where it clashes with scripture, you're reading the scripture wrong." It's been the official church stance since the 50s, and you see that in the Catholic Universities in full force, but I'd like to see the hierarchy take as strong a political stance on that as they do on issues like poverty, sex, and, recently, the environment.

indeed. something like 20 million.

I'm with you. And I'm not defending intelligent design, sorry if it came across that way. I'm familiar with the teapot. I don't expect people to simply believe me when I say "There is a God". By the same token, I find it silly when people cry from the realm of science that "There is no God". It's the same as claiming "There were no supernovae in the NGC 5457 galaxy in the last 6,000 years." There cannot possible be any observable evidence of such a thing, so science can make no claim.

peer review relies on the repeatability and the empirical evidence, I think that is the crux. Falsifiability and negatability are also key pieces that add to the beauty of the scientific method. In terms of observing the natural world and learning more about how it works, it's just a thing of beauty. When scientists drift into the realm of the spiritual, however, they are just as far out of their element as the religions are in describing the universe. Science has no method of proving the non-existence of God, because there is not empirically negatable hypothesis to check. Science can explain away all the previously held "works" of god in nature, but not His existence. Science cannot comment on that for which there can be no observable evidence.