badgerx16

Good science fiction is always well grounded in science fact, the question in this instance is whether you accept or understand enough of Quantum Mechanics to see that as fact. At the atomic level QM does some very spooky, and clearly reproducable, stuff. As Baj alludes to above, some of the 'deeper' stuff does end up as a bit of a mind f&@k.

God moves in mysterious ways, His miracles to perform (?) This 'fact' or 'lie' brings us back to the basic issue about the Bible, as I posted very early in this thread; it's a transliteration of a translation of a translation of a series of 'chinese whispers', constructed to order, and ANYBODY who takes it literally, especially the OT, seriously needs their head examining. And as for contradictions in the Gospels, they are 4 selected 'eye witness' accounts, written originally in 3 different languages, long after the events, and written to emphasise that particular author's perpective, ( which is why only 1 of them mentions the shepherds going to see the baby in the stable ). Your apparent error is in expecting the entire collection to run as a coherent historical narrative. Ultimately religious faith or conviction is another aspect of the freedom for self expression.

Is that 4 or 5 posts on this thread in which you have posted the self same thing ? The mistake you are making is to equate the Bible, in it's entireity, ( the majority of which is a quite aggresive Jewish religious tradition, - which I accept is in places unacceptable ), and the teachings of Jesus, as given out in the New Testament, and upon which the Christian faith is built. Where does Jesus, ( remember he was rejected by the Jews as a false prophet, though funnily enough he is accepted as a true prophet by Islam ), ordain infanticide , rape, murder, etc, etc. This is the God of peace, of love thy neighbour, of forgiveness, of healing and compassion. Which is precisely why the Jews, in their desire for a sword weilding God of wrath rejected him. It is not God's, or Jesus's, fault that people have used the more agressive traditions to argue the wrong message.

For somebody who thought himself a thoroughly rational, scientific, chap, I'm sounding horribly 'happy clappy' today

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. God will permit us to see exactly what He wants us to see, and to discover exactly what He wants us to discover. The decline in faith in western societies has accelerated with the expansion of scientific understanding. However, the more questions we answer, the more we seem to uncover that we don't understand. Which is less likely; (1) that somewhere there is an overseer with a guiding hand taking an 'arms length' benevolent custody of the human spirit, or (2) that life on Earth, ( in this particularly insignificant corner of one of billions of galaxies, in a universe that apparently originated spontaneously from a single point in a 'big bang' where there was previously nothing ), is completely due to a series of random mathematical chances ? However, if it was possible to prove, beyond a doubt, that God existed, it would destroy faith. It would probably also destroy humanity, as we would all, suddenly be aware that we weren't in ultimate control of anything, and effectively no better than lab rats, ( Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, anybody? ).

Agreed

1) How many Vikings, Saxons, Celts, etc converted to Christianity, thereby rejecting their ancestral belief systems ? They learnt to believe in the Judeo-Christian God without having Christian parents. 2) Given that the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim 'God's are one and the same, ( IMHO, please don't blow me up as a heretic ), perhaps what you actually have are simply many more varied interpretations of what is essentially the same basic belief. You could extend this to include all monotheistic relgions. And before you get onto the pantheonic structures of the Norse, Roman, or Greek gods, don't Christians have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirirt ? And don't Catholics also effectively deify Mary ? As has been stated earlier, belief is independant, and quite possibly exclusive of, proof. You are free to choose your personal system of spritual succour, as are we all.

It's funny how certain things can be remembered very clearly, and others slip your mind entirely. I know exactly what I was doing when this match was being played, as I had it on the radio at work whilst we were doing a network installation / upgrade around one of our office buildings, and when the 3rd goal went in I went running up and down the corridor telling the other 2 working for me, and they didn't believe me !

If there IS a God, then on Judgement Day the faithful will gather round saying "See, I told you so". If there isn't all that happens is when you die the switch gets turned off and your chemical constituents get re-cycled, over and over again until, eventually, the Earth will disappear; first into a super-nova, and ultimately into a Black Hole. On that basis, you pay your money and you make your choice.

It was built by Noah and sons of Gallifrey

Why thank you, now stop poking me with that damn spoon.

"God is dead" declares Nietzsche, "Nietzsche is dead" declares God. As regards the modern Christian faith, my take on it is that The Bible is for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. The Catholic Church is basically what grew out of a view of how things should be run, drawn up by St Augustine. The Protestant branches grew out of either (1) Martin Luther's rejection of Papal supremacy, or (2) King Henry the 8th's desire to destroy the financial power of the monastries and also to obtain a second divorce. As regards The Bible, most of the Old Testament is an English translation of a Latin translation, of an Aramaic or Greek transliteration of a Hebrew oral tradition, so goodness knows how many 'chinese whispers' might have got caught up in there. As for the New Testament, what we now know as the NT is a collection of the 'approved' texts that St Augustine felt supported his belief system; any non-conformist Gospel or other text being dismissed as heresy; and any historical translation of The Bible was always carried out for an ulterior purpose,- whoever payed for it could influence how things were interpreted. Look at the issue of the 'heresy' that was announced simply because an English translation was produced, thereby bringing understanding of the 'word of God' to the common people and away from the Latin scholars. ( Unless, of course, you accept that the 'hand of God' is always at work in any interpretation of His words, and so any new translation or publication is bound to have His approval ). I also, however, support the basic tenets of the Christian faith, although I do not approve of the formalities of the organised Church. Without some form of belief system, we are no better than animals. My relationship with God is between the two of us.

I remember him in 'Oliver in the Overworld', can still sing the theme song

Raising Sand - Robert Plant & Alison Krause

Kate Rusby - The Girl Who Couldn't Fly

Unseen Academicals - a ( sort of ) footbal related Terry Pratchett

The Colour Red and The Colour Blue are put in the washing machine together

Seven Fiancees for Seven Brothers The Empire Gets Struck Unzipped Fly Gordon The Football Workshop

8 songs 8 1/2 weeks A Good Night's Sleep on Elm Street Not Quite so Fast & Slightly Upset October 30th Cool Walkings Barrister Dredd The Footpath to Perdition

I fear for the gene pool.

86%, and my normal monthly intake is no more than 2 units

Also, please don't forget that CO2 is not the only 'greenhouse' gas: Nitrous Oxide levels have increased 18% in the last 200 years, from a fairly static level held for the previous 11000 years, and N2O is estimated to be over 300 times as effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. About one third of N2O entering the atmosphere is due to human activities. Methane is over 20 times as effective as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Since 1750, global levels of atmospheric NH4 have increased by 150%. Other chemicals enhancing the greenhouse effect are Chloroflourocarbons, whose levels are starting to slowly decrease as they have been widely phased out of industrial processes; and the flourinated gases used to replace CFCs. Whilst not destroying the ozone, like CFCs do, these flourinated gases trap more heat in the atmosphere than equivalent amounts of CO2.

Don't SHOUT at a TONGUE-IN-CHEEK post, getting a little dig in at our redneck chum across the pond. However, the problem with trying to use statistics in this sort of argument is that whilst we produce a comparatively small amount of CO2, look at it like this; If the Earth naturally produces 100 "units" of CO2 in a period of time, ( from volcanoes or whatever ), Mother Nature has historically found way of soaking this up, generally by growing trees in the rain forests and starting 'blooms' of algae and phyto-plankton in the seas. Mother Nature might also be able to cope with the additional 2 "units" produced by man, but the problem these days is that we are chopping down the rain-forests and polluting the seas, which kills off the algae and plankton, so not even the Earth's own 100 units are no longer getting 'soaked' up. MMCC is not simply down to our production of CO2 from hydrocarbons, it's our interference with the balance that otherwise exists to absorb it. Oh, I forgot to add,----- FACT!

A talentless Geordie slapper, with a a complete t0$$er for a husband. I wouldn't go near her her with yours, let alone mine !

There's almost a logic here - if we get through all the hydrocarbon fuels as quickly as possible, then when it's all gone our production of CO2 will effectively come to an end as there is nothing left to burn, and the problem of man's contribution to climate change will be solved. Admittedly we'll probably all be sitting in a desert, or under the sea.