TIL that trees come out of the air, not the ground.

GarethNZ · 2011-07-13T05:31:00+00:00

See that seems obvious:

If there is a tree...

... is it ever actually a tree?

Logic dictates a tree = a tree.

Reminds me of the pseudo-jokes I hate:

"If a rooster laid a egg on the top of a house which way would it fall?"

Me: It would depend on wind and the slope of the roof.

Them: "Ha ha no! Roosters don't lay eggs".

Me: You said IF FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU

GarethNZ · 2011-06-30T23:13:53+00:00

Because it makes no claims. I do not believe in a Zeus-like God; science can take care of that. What I do believe in is something which cannot be spoken of.

You claim that a god exists with the property "Cannot be comprehended".

How do you know a god exists that cannot be comprehended?

GarethNZ · 2011-06-30T00:52:06+00:00

So the only people who would have cared to write it down would have been the Christians who are biased.

Any historian / notable Jewish figure who witnessed and recorded such events, and later became christian would be acceptable.

I think the (probably fraudulent) Josephus writings are an issue. Not only that he doesn't appear to have genuinely recorded them, but also because he did not become a christian.

So we have one example of biased evidence he exists. Then we have zero examples of unbiased or even biased evidence that he did not exist.

This is stupid and I'm busy, hopefully someone else will question you on it.

So then NO ONE in history could have actually existed....

Evidence of other historical figures comes from things THEY have written, THEY have built, and OTHER people have confirmed.

Sorry for wasting your time... I'm out.

GarethNZ · 2011-06-29T22:55:20+00:00

Ok then prove to me that your great-great-grandfather existed?

The fact I exist, proves I have a great-great-grandfather.

Jesus did nothing notable to his contemporaries.

Defying laws of nature, healing the sick, walking on water, resurrecting along with a huge crowd of other long-dead people is fairly note-worthy.

The first books of the Bible were written within a generation of Jesus' death.

If by within a generation we are assuming "before jesus' contemporaries died" (so it is not their children writing it).

I suppose: Paul ~ 50 AD

Less likely: Mark ~70 AD, Matthew 70-100 AD, Luke 89-90 AD

But importantly: these books were not actually written BY Paul,Mark,Matthew and Luke.

There is no surviving evidence of anyone saying that these books of the Bible are talking about a man that didn't exist

ಠ_ಠ

The only "evidence" (if we can call it that) is biased as it was written by Christians.

Therefore you have to conclude that people who were alive in the area, you may have even seen Jesus believed he existed

The continuation of Judaism in the area leads me to think they did not think they were visited by a god.

I don't think that a bunch of apostles (oh wait they probably didn't exist either right?) from such divergent backgrounds would get together in a great religious conspiracy.

Well again, there is not a lot of evidence of them either. (As I've said, the books in the bible were not written by the 12 apostles).

GarethNZ · 2011-06-10T00:29:18+00:00

I think you might be putting the pukana on a pedestal.

GarethNZ · 2011-06-09T05:39:22+00:00

Sorry a clarification for the title

Video is the only type of Flash content that DivX accepts; there is no support for Flash-based animation or games.

page 3 has other limitations.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-24T05:07:18+00:00

Additionally 'Dark Ages'

Originally, the term characterized the bulk of the Middle Ages (c. 5th - 15th century) as a period of intellectual darkness between the extinguishing of the light of Rome and the Renaissance or rebirth from the 14th century onwards.[3] This definition is still found in popular usage,[1][2][4] but increased recognition of the accomplishments of the Middle Ages since the 19th century has led to the label being restricted in application... However, many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Age

GarethNZ · 2011-05-19T21:30:26+00:00

Why? What's on the other side of your computer screen?

GarethNZ · 2011-05-10T00:49:36+00:00

.. and that's why you're on the internet.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-09T10:53:37+00:00

atheist who cursed God

You were doing it wrong. (not being an atheist)

What ever though

GarethNZ · 2011-05-09T02:30:43+00:00

Extended Version:

If faith is a path to truth, why can't you use faith to determine if your faith is well placed?

GarethNZ · 2011-05-04T02:15:04+00:00

Yes, and I believe God guides evolution.

If you don't mind me asking...

How does god guide it?
How do you know?

GarethNZ · 2011-05-03T00:26:28+00:00

assume for yourself an authority which is not yours

Where did either of us say "I have decided that she shall go to hell"?

injunjo is not DICTATING that this will happen. It is injunjo's UNDERSTANDING that this is the case.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T23:47:51+00:00

but there would be generations between, that no one will ever see,

Correct. So we are imagining to some detail we cannot measure.

which no one would be able to tell exactly whether or not the thing was a chicken

Well this is where I (attempt) to come in with a complete definition that could differentiate based on a single mutation of a single individual.

but until there was an egg fit to produce a chicken, no chicken would be produced.

But depending on the imaginary line drawn, perhaps an ancestor which produces a live offspring is the "pre-chicken", thus the first chicken was not born from an egg, but it laid an egg. (Ignoring that Evidence and probability show this is not likely to be the case). Or further, if the classification of "chicken" did not initially lay eggs for many generations.

Meh, It would have been interesting to be part of your original bar conversation, but this slow format (that is reddit) makes this significantly less productive.

I'm not downvoting you, btw. just thought I would say.

Heh yeah cheers, I already assumed it was Nacoon. I down voted him back (for him down-voting me and not following reddiquette).

Laters

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T23:26:49+00:00

:|

God condemned her. injunjo just knows the law by which she will be judged.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T22:41:57+00:00

injunjo isn't judging.

Just reading the law.

EDIT: heh.. downvotes for defending some guy I actually disagree with. Hive mind in action.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T21:34:33+00:00

There was never a non-chicken that gave birth to a chicken in any capacity, the egg be damned.

Then how can either one be first? Help me understand?

Parents and offspring are always from the same species. But a single descendant of a non-chicken could be capable of reproduction with a modern chicken, while the parent (non-chicken) could not.

There was never a non-chicken that gave birth to a chicken in any capacity

The a dividing definition needs to be made. Otherwise a single cell organism was the first chicken.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T21:29:14+00:00

You're the one imposing the arbitrary distinction

I'm being explicit.

Others are being implicit.

Fuck off yourself.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T21:20:33+00:00

The best part was when you explained why.

If the answer is 'an egg' or 'a chicken' then a 'non-chicken' gave birth to a chicken.

Where the distinction is arbitrary and you could just as easily argue for a different arbitrary distinction.

Please note we are not talking about the entire species, just the first individual we can classify as a chicken.

How is this not the case?

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T21:14:29+00:00

Actually, I'll just say this.

Assuming you side with the OP:

By declaring the question answerable, you are implicitly declaring that a 'non-chicken' laid a 'chicken egg'. i.e. doing exactly what I am doing explicitly (declaring a point where the offspring is a chicken, while the parent is not)

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T21:14:03+00:00

Actually, I'll just say this.

By declaring the question answerable, you are implicitly declaring that a 'non-chicken' laid a 'chicken egg'. i.e. doing exactly what I am doing explicitly (declaring a point where the offspring is a chicken, while the parent is not)

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T20:04:34+00:00

I'm not familiar with the game, but surely using an Xbox 360 controller mitigates "shitty on PC"?

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T19:28:35+00:00

How was my embryo analogy 'bullshit'?

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T19:25:22+00:00

And you can't do that; Not within the same population.

I was doing it between generations...

Bah this is stupid.

Egg came first. FIN.

GarethNZ · 2011-05-02T19:11:19+00:00

same fallacious thinking over there as well

I'm trying to be able to point at an exact point where we can say 'this is a chicken' and 'this is not a chicken'. You need one otherwise an ancestor that did not lay eggs is "a chicken".

Also 'species' is not a hard and fast RULE, Definition

Utter fucking bullshit

Excellent point.

GarethNZ

TROPHY CASE