ydoaPs

They are? How often do madmen kidnap people and place them in separate rooms each with a button that would kill the other? How often do people find a track changing switch for a train just as a train is about to kill a group of people? Those are most certainly NOT real life scenarios. The pandemic in question is just as 'real life' as those and many other scenarios used in ethics. It's only as speculative as the rest of ethical philosophy. If you're so against this discussion, why don't you close this tab and never reopen this thread? No one is making you take part in this conversation. If you want to add to the discussion, fine. Please, stop hijacking the thread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's pretty much spot on. The mention of zombies was really only to give a popular reference to the idea and to provide the source of the thought process for the question.

Why? It's very possible for there to be a incurable pandemic of a 'rage virus' similar to but more powerful than rabies. This is a legitimate ethical question. Many ethical questions are 'speculative.' By your post above, you'd have a large portion of Ethics sent from the textbooks to the trash heap.

Besides the glass one?

So much for global warming...

Zombies may not feel pain, but they do burn. Regardless, we're not talking about mythical zombies, we're talking about a theoretical pandemic the likes of a mutated Rabies virus with no known cure. Rabies victims, iirc, DO feel pain.

What if it is some terrible mutation of rabies?

With the recent popularity of zombie movies, I started thinking. At what point in a pandemic is a shotgun an appropriate defense against the disease? How bad would this disease have to be?

With your current IRC behaviour, it's no wonder you were banned.

I'd totally get one if it had flash support and did multitasking.

YOU can't fix it.

Yes, it does. I provided some good links above as well. In what way? Perhaps you should look into it. As it stands, that is definitive proof of human evolution.

Blood_pardon, I would appreciate it if you answer my question. Which texts an why? The earliest manuscript of the proto-orthodox New Testament we have includes the Shepherd of the Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Are those right too? The doctrine of inerrancy is only possible due to a complete ignorance of how the Bible was made and what it actually is.

The correct expression is 'in b4 404'.

kthxbai

blood_pardon, I'm going to be in the middle of the ocean for a while, so it will take some time for me to get back to you, but I'm going to leave you with a question. You've already stated that god doesn't plant false information(so, you've already cut yourself off from that out), so I want to see how you answer this. The speed of light is constant(if it wasn't, both Special Relativity[one of the best tested theories EVER] and our understanding of electricity[Maxwell's Equations which predicted the speed of light] are completely wrong; neither your GPS nor your computer would work). Our galaxy is approximately 100000 light-years across(a light year is the distance a beam of light travels in one Earth year). How is it, if the Universe is only 6000 years old, that we can see the edge of our galaxy(and WELL past)? We can actually see billions of light years away, which means the universe MUST be billions of years old.

blood_pardon, I'm going to be in the middle of the ocean for a while, so it will take some time for me to get back to you, but I'm going to leave you with a question. If evolution is wrong, what do you make of the telomeres in the middle of the human chromosome #2?

Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender asks him if he wants a beer. Descartes says 'I think not' and promptly disappears.

How do you, then, explain the fact that we can see the other side of the galaxy?

A more familiar word may be 'fundamental' particle. It is exactly what it sounds like-a particle that is not made of anything else. Not true. If the non-composite particle changed some property, it would still be spaceless, but not timeless. Could you elaborate?

Talkorigins is a great resource and it cites its sources.

Perhaps we should. Maybe the OP has not been exposed to the evidence. I, for one, was an ignorant YEC when I began posting here all those years ago. It wouldn't be the first time someone saw the evidence and went with it. So we should deprive him of the evidence? Maybe that is true, but I've not seen his other posts and I'd like to give him a chance. Even if you're out I'm going to give it a try unless the OP proves to be a troll.

There ARE! All you have to do is look around. Every creature is transitional or terminal. Evolution is about slow, cumulative change. No biologist expects a dog to give birth to a catdog; It doesn't work like that. Each generation passes along their genes, but the children are not *quite* the same genetically due to mutations(which mostly have no impact on the survival of the child). Imagine, for a moment, a human chain. You hold the hand of your mother and she holds the hand of her mother ect. Each mother and child resemble each other just as much as the last. Each mother loves her child as much as her mother loved her. If you extend this chain, and then bend it backwards with first cousins facing each other, a chain of this type having you staring at a chimpanzee would be roughly only 300 miles long. Evolution isn't discrete over a large scale, but, rather, it's roughly continuous. You may want to look at this Introduction to Evolutionary Biology and this Index of common creationist claims with rebuttles. That site is very good and it gives sources. Evolution is just the change in allele frequency over time; it acts upon groups rather than individuals.

I didn't dispute that. In what way did I 'stir the pot'? I merely answered the OP, politely opened the lines of communication by asking for clarification(something YOU did as well) of his position in a non-threatening manner, and nitpicked your post a little. And that's one of the reasons I didn't discuss religion. You didn't give him a chance to do so before you got hostile. I suggest you may need to sit this one out and leave it to the other mods. What do you mean? I am a composite being, so space always exists for me. Indeed. And the magnitude of the distance between objects is based upon the energy in the frame of reference. Not really. See my example in my above post about the spaceless universe consisting of a sole non-composite particle. If you would like to discuss such matters, I do moderate a forum about religion(in which all viewpoints are encouraged to engage in discussion so long as they can do so civilly). It's http://somefaith.proboards.com We're actually quite low on people from your particular viewpoint. Feel free to bring some friends if you decide to check it out. Now this is a scientific claim. It's something falsafiable(which just means that it is able to be proven or proven to be false). There are indeed several reasons to think the Earth(and the universe in general) are far older than 7 thousand years.

IIRC, the BB says nothing of the origin, but rather of expansion. Surely we can hear him out first. Perhaps he has evidence to support his stance.

Matter is needed for space. As space is the separation of objects, and time is merely the separation of states of a system. Both are relative and the magnitude of each is determined by the energy density(which varies by location and reference frame). To have a distance(space), there must be a reference by which such distance can be theoretically measured. A universe consisting sole zero-dimensional point has no space. If this universe does not change, then it also has no time. Why do you think this? When do you think this happened?