|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:48
"Sam Nelson" ssrl.org.uk> wrote
>> What am I mising here, Obi-Wan?
>
> `Think all the evil you like, but don't do any of it or tell anyone'.
Can I post it when I'm pissed?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:46
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
>>> No experiment is exactly repeatable, and any experiment that got
>>> *exactly* the same results should be viewed with the deepest suspicion.
>>
>> Please explain?
>
> Any experiment takes place at a given point or set of points in the
> space-time continuum. If a repeat of that experiment takes place at the
> same time, it cannot be in precisely the same space. If it takes place in
> precisely the same space, it cannot be at precisely the same time.
> Therefore, the initial conditions for any two runs of the experiment
> inevitably differ. Therefore, no experiment is exactly repeatable.
Can God change this situation?
Can He rewrite your(sic) laws of Physics?
> As for a repeat getting exactly the same results, that has "data fraud"
> written all over it.
And now, with all these questions that you haven't time to answer, you want
to tackle Statistics?
Good Man!
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:42
"Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
>
Are you suggesting that God only has an influence on the Universe rather
than defining it?
(we can start a new thread if you prefer?)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:39
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
>>> No experiment is exactly repeatable, and any experiment that got
>>> *exactly* the same results should be viewed with the deepest suspicion.
>>
>> Please explain?
> Any experiment takes place at a given point or set of points in the
> space-time continuum.
So now you also believe in a Space-Time Continuum?
How many 'points' are there, out of interest?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:36
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
> JAF said:
>> Bollocks.
>
> Thank you for that sparkling commentary. What do you do for an encore -
> spit
> in your customers' styrofoam cups?
Your humanity is starting to show over your divinity.
JAF is a fucking great bloke. I can think of at least 100 people reading
this thread that have met JAF and I would put money on three quarters of
that number quite liking the bloke or above.
If you are going to complain about invective comment then for God's sake
please don't contribute to it.
> Please, if you must post, post something intelligent that is actually
> worth
> reading. Thanks.
For the first time in ten years, I presumed that somebody on usenet had
something new to say. What a shame.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Sam NelsonSam Nelson
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:31
In article bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield writes:> Inevitably, at the point where I do
> draw the line, *someone* is going to say "nah nah, got you there" just
> because I don't answer them. I suspect, however, that people like Sam
> Nelson won't do this, and I know people like Badger Shame won't - because
> they are able to be more objective.
Oh, and I did my time on the Radio 4 group.
--
SAm.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:31
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
> It is true that I don't answer every point. What you don't seem to realise
> is the sheer size of this thread, and the fact that I am (almost) the only
> one putting forward the Christian view, and so I'm spending far more time
> than anyone else on this thread - time that I can't continue to spend
> without drawing the line *somewhere*.
Why not narrow the cross-post a little, Einstein?
I'm in uk.misc.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Sam NelsonSam Nelson
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:30
In article <45af9ce1$0$32019$fa0fcedb@ news.zen.co.uk>,
"Red Fog" writes:> "Richard Heathfield" wrote
>
>>> A person's sexuality and their actions are two entirely different
>>> chapters.
>>
>> Oh, well. So you didn't have a point.
>>
>>> Do pay attention, Bond.
>>
>> Wake up, and smell the topic. Being tempted is not a sin. Never has been,
>> never will be. What you call "a person's sexuality" is a part of their
>> character, and is irrelevant here. What matters is their actions.
>
> Sorry to be a pain, but can we just do this again?
>
> 'Sexuality' is part of ones 'character'?
>
> I would have thought that ones character has a significant impact upon ones ...
|
| Show full article (0.87Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:29
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
> No experiment is exactly repeatable, and any experiment that got *exactly*
> the same results should be viewed with the deepest suspicion.
Please explain?
Are you suggesting that God only has an influence on the Universe rather
than defining it?
This is an unexpected deviation from your earlier principles.
|
| |
|
2 Comments |
|
|
Author: Red FogRed Fog
Date: Jan 18, 2007 08:14
"Richard Heathfield" wrote
>> A person's sexuality and their actions are two entirely different
>> chapters.
>
> Oh, well. So you didn't have a point.
>
>> Do pay attention, Bond.
>
> Wake up, and smell the topic. Being tempted is not a sin. Never has been,
> never will be. What you call "a person's sexuality" is a part of their
> character, and is irrelevant here. What matters is their actions.
Sorry to be a pain, but can we just do this again?
'Sexuality' is part of ones 'character'?
I would have thought that ones character has a significant impact upon ones
actions.
What am I mising here, Obi-Wan?
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
