DannHuff

I'd be interested to understand what a crash would look like. Is it simply the USD falling in value relative to other currencies or do you mean a broader systematic crash (e.g. banks no longer able to repay cash deposits)?

This is one of the best explanations on this subject that I've heard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl8U4G4Tp3M

The former Australian Prime Minister giving his perspective on introducing gun control. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?hp&_r=0

Excellent photography and production - I enjoyed the video. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Not wanting to take unnecessary risk.

Interview with jumper who played the Queen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXaWR3fv4N4

The academics from Columbia and Harvard come out looking particularly bad.

According to the Bible "I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist." Not sure where Mr Obama stands on this issue.

Former three times world champion dies on Tuesday. Seems like it is bigger news outside of the US. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-andy-irons-surfing-20101103,0,5093474.story

When I was 15 yrs old, I worked part-time at Kmart. There was a guy who brought in a circular power saw, 12 months after purchasing it, wanting a refund. The state of the power saw looked like he had built a house and now was returning it for his money back. It was incredible to me that the store knew it was being taken for a ride but still went ahead claiming customer satisfaction and return purchases.

But you see that his definition of a code ('an agreed convention') requires a code to be something that was designed by a conscious mind. He then takes DNA and shoehorns it into this definition. a) That code is DNA. b) If you do show him another one, he'll say that either that one must have been designed as well, because all the other ones are or he'll say it doesn't fit his definition of a code, because his definition of a code requires it to be designed. So? That doesn't mean the argument has any credibility, it just means that there are people on atheist forums happy to sit there and write the same answers to the same objections over and over and over again. Sounds like you have not watched the video. If you get a chance to watch it, I'd be interested to know whether you still have the same comments.

I didn't watch the full one-hour video, but I skimmed through it and read other stuff on the website. So please correct me if I have misunderstood... Basically, he seems to be saying that DNA is a code, and that all codes are designed by a conscious mind (they don't occur naturally), and so therefore DNA was designed by a conscious mind. And that is his proof that an intelligent creator exists. (Nevermind the complexity of such a creator and where it came from.) The problem in his "proof" is stating that all codes are designed by a conscious mind. He states that as if it is a fact, but it is not, so he has proven nothing. Yes he is saying that no one has ever discovered a code (ie an agreed convention) that was not designed by a conscious mind. Therefore the best available alternative to explain code in DNA is a designer. His challenge is "show me a code that occurs naturally" to topple his conclusion. There are 56 pages of posts on an atheists forum debating this.

Well then we wont know whether you have an understanding or simply have blind faith in someone else's theories. OK, so only personal origional research is valid. Upon birth, everyone should set out to learn everything about the natural world themselves or their knowledge is dismissed as "blind faith" If you require to know 100% of every detail on the origion of the universe, the only stance that you can take is agnosticism. However, that does not mean that everything else is on equal footing. I dismiss creationism because it totally disregards the scientific method, gives up on examining new evidence and says "give up on learning, just accept that God made everything!" I accept the big bang theory and evolution because it uses human observation and investigation, and everything is up for scrutiny. Even if it was wrong, the methodology is still leaps and bounds ahead of creationism's "blind faith". I would gladly change my views if presented evidence to the contrary. Creationism leaves no such room for improvement. Belief in an ancient book full of contradictions is "blind faith". The only faith (probably not the best word choice here) that my views require is hope in human inginuity to eventually fill in the details in our current theories

Well then we wont know whether you have an understanding or simply have blind faith in someone else's theories.

So we can understand, can you explain, in your own words, what you believe on how it all began?

Let me get this straight. You believe first there was nothing and then there was something. Something came from nothing. Sounds like faith to me.

You will only know down the track (eg ten years later) if the approach taken was the right one. No point in short term gain if long term problems are created. Time will tell.

Amputations are performed to save lives. In effect healing takes place as a result of the amputation. So to me this statement does not make sense. What the writer is getting at is why doesnt God grow legs on people who he had already given legs to at an earlier time.

Beautifully put - we find evidence to believe what we want to believe. This includes everyone one on this forum.

Actually my point was more on how we perceive evidence. What is deemed true for one is a lie for another. On the man made globally warming debate here are scientists who have put their name to one side of the argument http://www.petitionproject.org/

Thanks for the material pointing to the earth getting warmer. From my perspective I have no trouble believing the earth is warming. This may be part of natural cycles. The question remains whether, for example, man made CO2 is contributing to the warming. One is able to find scientists that believe in both camps - for and against. It seems what is evidence for some is lies for others. In the end we filter evidence through our own worldview.

No typo. One man's evidence is another man's lies - case in point is the man-made climate change debate.

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no evidence of existence that I accept should be considered a defect, IMHO. There fixed it for you.

Perhaps this is Britain's answer to Hollywood's walk of fame, except instead of a star they use a ....

There could be another reason why your prayers are not answered. "It’s your sins that have cut you off from God. Because of your sins, he has turned away and will not listen anymore."