Kirk Cameron Attacks Stephen Hawking

[photon]

Originally Posted by evman150

Sorry photon, hate to pick you up on this, but this is one of my pet peeves.

Newton wasn't "wrong", by any reasonable definition of correctness. He was merely inexact. His equations work on macroscopic scales, and they work almost perfectly. Just because they don't work on tiny scales where other equations take hold does not make him "wrong". We put a man on the moon and spacecraft beyond the solar system with Newton. Doesn't sound "wrong" to me.

Einstein did not prove Newton wrong, or turn over Newton's work. He improved upon it. Einstein's equations boil down to Newton's on a macro-scale. This would not be the case if Newton was wrong.

You are right of course, I've posted Asimov's Relativity of Wrong enough to know I should have worded it better.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by photon

You are right of course, I've posted Asimov's Relativity of Wrong enough to know I should have worded it better.

Never read that link before, thank you.

And sorry for getting a little hot under the collar haha.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I guess you can stand up whenever you want if there's injustice, but we're not talking about violent or serious crimes here. It's about prayer. Again I understand what you guys are saying, I have no issue with that.

You just may not agree with this kids idea of serious. If he is fighting his whole school, community and his family I'm guessing he isn't doing it for shiggles. If he is willing to take that much heat for this principle then, from his perspective, it is serious.

It doesn't need to be violent to be serious.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by evman150

And sorry for getting a little hot under the collar haha.

He admits to being angry! Ban him! BAN HIIIIIM!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by evman150

Never read that link before, thank you.

And sorry for getting a little hot under the collar haha.

Who doesn't have Newton-Mania?

[IliketoPuck]

So is the debate in this thread over then? Funny pictures and witty one liners without any response seem to usually signal the end.

[onetwo_threefour]

Just liike Rosa Parks brought all that trouble on herself. Had nothing to do wit those who were actively discriminating against her.

[photon]

I prefer Newton's work in Alchemy personally.

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I am more inspired by Einstein's views on religion and god. He has made some pretty eloquent quotes on the subject and seemed to straddle the same agnostic line that I personally relate to.

He was clearly not a theist, but he doesn't rule anything out.

For anyone interested:

http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm

This particular quote alway rang true to me:

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

BTW, I know that website obviously has an angle. I am not positng to try and promote Deism... it just had a good quote collection.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by photon

I prefer Newton's work in Alchemy personally.

We looked at the "natural philosophy" (or, what "science" was before the scientific method) of Boyle, Newton, and a few others vis-a-vis classical theories of causation and the composition of matter. It reads a lot like the witch scene in the Holy Grail.

e.g. "Things are hot inasmuch as they have a share of fire".

Actually that's Thomas Aquinas but it's all the same.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You just may not agree with this kids idea of serious. If he is fighting his whole school, community and his family I'm guessing he isn't doing it for shiggles. If he is willing to take that much heat for this principle then, from his perspective, it is serious.

It doesn't need to be violent to be serious.

I thanked this entirely for "shiggles".

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by T@T

LOL, you must have missed his disappearing act in countless threads,he's a one hit wonder,typical bible thumper who runs and hides as soon as his so-called faith is put to the test.

Sad that people live that way..but lets not forget he loves guns. Great combo in the making!

Firstly, I've contributed far more to these endless bash christianity threads than you have.

Secondly, you(meaning CP) are not that important. I have many relationships and responsibilities that come before you. I'm not going to respond every time one of you atheist get into a little snit. If I did that I would never be off CP. Since my last post I've fed my children,gone to church, watch NCIS, prayed, studied, slept, sprayed my lawn and the neigbours for broad leaf, went shopping and read some news. All these things trumped you.

Lastly, I have nothing to defend. My opinion of Stephen Hawkings limitations are as valid as yours of Kirk Cameron. He lives in his academic world and that is all he knows. His disability has even restricted that world more. It's like a guy who is looking through a rifle scope and seeing a vast distance but, can't see the buck wandering by on his left. At the end of the day he swears there was no game in the bush.

Steven Hawking is a blind man denying the existance of colour. Science can't put God or history under a microscope. They can't view either through a telescope. They can see marvellous things through both but, not how they got there. For that question Kirk Cameron has an advantage over Stephen Hawkings. He hasn't limited himself to see through one singular prism: science.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Firstly, I've contributed far more to these endless bash christianity threads than you have.

Secondly, you(meaning CP) are not that important. I have many relationships and responsibilities that come before you. I'm not going to respond every time one of you atheist get into a little snit. If I did that I would never be off CP. Since my last post I've fed my children,gone to church, watch NCIS, prayed, studied, slept, sprayed my lawn and the neigbours for broad leaf, went shopping and read some news. All these things trumped you.

Lastly, I have nothing to defend. My opinion of Stephen Hawkings limitations are as valid as yours of Kirk Cameron. He lives in his academic world and that is all he knows. His disability has even restricted that world more. It's like a guy who is looking through a rifle scope and seeing a vast distance but, can't see the buck wandering by on his left. At the end of the day he swears there was no game in the bush.

Steven Hawking is a blind man denying the existance of colour. Science can't put God or history under a microscope. They can't view either through a telescope. They can see marvellous things through both but, not how they got there. For that question Kirk Cameron has an advantage over Stephen Hawkings. He hasn't limited himself to see through one singular prism: science.

You are, bar none, the worst poster on CP, and you further entrench yourself in that position with each post full of intolerant, fallacious and specious schlock you "grace" us with.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

For that question Kirk Cameron has an advantage over Stephen Hawkings. He hasn't limited himself to see through one singular prism: science.

I'm surprised Kirk Cameron hasn't poked his eye out with the sharp end of a banana yet.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If I did that I would never be off CP. Since my last post I've fed my children,gone to church, watch NCIS, prayed, studied, slept, sprayed my lawn and the neigbours for broad leaf, went shopping and read some news. All these things trumped you.

I don't post much on here but this made me laugh. I was wondering how you'd respond to people calling you out for making fun of someone's disability. I was hoping with some humility.

So because I'm not as (self) important as you, I checked your profile out of curiosity a while ago before your post and it said your last activity on this site was at around 2:04pm IIRC.

[Gozer]

nm

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

For that question Kirk Cameron has an advantage over Stephen Hawkings. He hasn't limited himself to see through one singular prism: science.

No, only the singular prism of fundamentalism. Which is far more closed and terrifying.

Fundamental theism, doesn't learn, it just repeats like a parrot. At least science learns and grows.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I'm surprised Kirk Cameron hasn't poked his eye out with the sharp end of a banana yet.

It's just the right shape for the human eye too...

[Knut]

It is also the right shape for other places as well... God just made it that way as a temptation that young girls have to overcome

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Firstly, I've contributed far more to these endless bash christianity threads than you have.

Secondly, you(meaning CP) are not that important. I have many relationships and responsibilities that come before you. I'm not going to respond every time one of you atheist get into a little snit. If I did that I would never be off CP. Since my last post I've fed my children,gone to church, watch NCIS, prayed, studied, slept, sprayed my lawn and the neigbours for broad leaf, went shopping and read some news. All these things trumped you.

Lastly, I have nothing to defend. My opinion of Stephen Hawkings limitations are as valid as yours of Kirk Cameron. He lives in his academic world and that is all he knows. His disability has even restricted that world more. It's like a guy who is looking through a rifle scope and seeing a vast distance but, can't see the buck wandering by on his left. At the end of the day he swears there was no game in the bush.

Steven Hawking is a blind man denying the existance of colour. Science can't put God or history under a microscope. They can't view either through a telescope. They can see marvellous things through both but, not how they got there. For that question Kirk Cameron has an advantage over Stephen Hawkings. He hasn't limited himself to see through one singular prism: science.

To be clear here, you are siding with Miiiiiike, over one of the most brilliant minds to ever grace humanity.

You sir, are an.......