I won't argue with the point that it is possible, I agree with you on that.  I just seems unlikely and counterintuitive.

But yes, it is possible.

So nothing caused it big bang it simply happened? 

Even scientists don't believe that, in fact prior to the big bang they usually referred to a negative in the time cycle.  Are we or aren't we in a universe of cause and effect?

Beginning may be an arbitrary point, it may be a point where an occurrance happened, but that does not mean that is "the beginning".  Everything breaks down prior to the big bang.

Oh do I whine ad hom like barney or can you possibly answer rational plain questions?



No, Baldar. Don't go there.

- Edited by: Abraxas

Hillary Clinton basically slept her way to the top.  She did not go through a rigorous political process.  She did not rise to the level of senator by debating issues and rising from local politics and evolve into the national stage.  Nope.  She slept with a man who did it all, and she was there because she knew she couldn't do it without a man..  Even when he slept with every bimbette he could find, she knew she could not achieve anything without a man.

The senate was handed to her in a dem state and dem leadership that owed her husband much.  And now she is using the same system in an attempt to vault to the top.  I would hardly call the first lady any kind of elected office, and I certainly don't see the office mentioned in the Constitution as having real power or authority (beyond what the man, her husband gives her).

Hillary turns feminism on its head and everything she has, she owes to a man who abused his relationship with her.  If that is measured or realistic, I would suggest you go back to school kid.

I don't think Obama has the full measure needed presently (though I think later he will, maybe another term or two), but at least he rose through the hurley burley of American politics in order to guage a nations pulse.  It wasn't given to him, he earned it.

So will barney admit to the utter illogic of butterfly morality or will he avoid answering an issue he himself raised?

So in other words barney isn't insane because he thinks butterflies make moral decisions? 

On an individual basis, even my tithe is almost nothing (alms for the poor in Islam by the way is only 2 -3%, but would be more than sufficient if everyone did it).  But if everyone would be more careful with their donations (including the newspaper boy and whomever), the macro effect would create a more efficient charity system over all.

Hiter would applaud you your utilitarian view, he did the same thing you are, using pretty much the same logic.  Good going barney...

Now have you figured out yet, how to explain the butterflies are creatures that make moral decisons?



You have just described why religion can exist while still being difficult to explain.  Now lets see if you understand your own words. 

Hitler never claimed to be god.  And yet you call them the same.  Well, luckily we are slightly more educated than you are in the field (any field really).  Hitler never was the "ultimate authority", otherwise he would not have had advisors.  But then just another flaw in your very flawed logic.  Once again you have proven yourself inadequate.  I suggest you think before you type.

If you judge all people based soley upon "your interpretation" of their actions, it would make you the biggest ass on this forum (hmmm, that may actually be accurate).  I suggest you rethink that portion of your morality.  But then, maybe you are calling yourself god? 

As any urologist will tell you, sperm count isn't important if they don't wiggle. 

I have to tell you, he is definately not ex navy.  He fell  apart a months back on the most innocuou military questions put to him.  He may claim it, but he certainly hasn't shown he has had the experience, certainly not in this forum.

It is standard for ASW execises to be carried out during maneuvers.  And it is something that should be criticized.

No, Stalin never claimed to be a god, nor has anyone else in regard to communism.  So not it isn't even a close characterization.

However, it is a fraud foisted by atheists and should be given the same condemnation, or is barney too zealous to say as much?  It will be an interesting response.

I guess the boy is giving up on attempting to show us his reasoning that somehow butterflies make moral decisions.  So his retreat is now going to point 2.  First it was claiming "ad hom", then when he paints himself in the corner and cannot answer the question, its "don't talk about me".

Sorry kid, its not about you, its your bigotry and your incredibly limited reasoning when attempting to attack other people's belief system.

Again, care to explain in detail how a butterfly makes moral decisions?  Or are you going to claim its all about you?

Nah, I was doing bizness, and so found it difficult to balance everything I needed to do.  While I enjoy this place (somewhat), it isn't as high on the list as other items, so this needed to go while I focused elsewhere.

Not a big deal.

. Oh its not me