Dion

Almost felt bad for Pep. He must have had some awful Torres flashbacks from Eden's goal!  

@Barbara @Rmpr @Henrique
 
Have you guys seen this? 
 

David Luiz being praised. Funny. I've seen almost everything now.

@Jason Jay, how can I not remember of you seeing this PERFECTION?

I agree with you. But as absurd as that sounds to you and me, there are some who do not think homosexuality and catholicism/christianity are incompatible. It probably has its appeal to those, besides the more practical benefits like taxation, since they believe they should be together in the eyes of god or something to that effect.

Yeah, I have a lot of friends on med school and they all say the same thing... It'll pay off later though!
Well, I haven't partied at all! It all feels so surreal right now lol. Yea, I can imagine, from the footage I've seen Lisbon looks fucking crazy right now! He chose the right time I guess.

Oh nice, enjoying med school or not really?
Hope you have a nice time!
 
I'm doing quite nice, as you can imagine.

Hey, what's up? I've been kinda busy. Long story short, I was pretty disappointed with law, so I studied a bit last year and got admitted to med school in an even better university than the one I studied law. And, well, it seems like it was true and med students really have a shit ton to study, so... but I still come here from time to time. You doing good?

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Brexit Update (HBO)
 

I loved this:

Imagine the possibilities. The UK decide to leave the EU thus starting a chain reaction of exodus from the EU, destroying the dream of one unified Europe. Nationalism has spurred on Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland to become their own republics. Trump becomes the next president of the United States and his strong imperialist ideas are causing friction around the world. Europe is now unstable with right wing parties taking power spreading their nationalist and anti immigration ideas all around Europe. Russia seeks to take advantage of Europe's instability trying to exert more influence around its European neighbours with aggression and subversion. Trump and Putin are buoyed by a strong wave of nationalism in their homelands which gives them the momentum in accelerating their aggressive imperialistic foreign policies and military strategies. The world is now very unstable with WW3 not unlikely.
Ok its far fetched but it could make a very interesting drama series for Netflix.
 
 
 
 
 

He should have done what the other mentally ill loners do    - register for Talk Chelsea

No banning can ever completely negate anything. What it does is make it harder. If you really wanna kill another person you can always find a way. But guns make it easier. Isn't that the purpose of guns anyway – making killing easier? Homemade bombs take a lot more effort and knowledge to be used. You don't even need to ban guns for good, here in Brazil you can buy and keep one, as long as you meet certain requirements.

It would go really, really bad. Not everyone is willing and able to effectively use a gun, and if everyone had a gun in that nightclub, it could have turned out worse just as easily as better. You're in a confined space with low lighting crammed full of people who have been drinking and all have loaded weapons. That seems like a disaster to me. The shooter opens fire, a couple people see it and shoot at him and then others don't know who the original shooter is or if there's still a threat.
You may not be able to get rid of all guns, but you're making it insanely hard for people to get guns. If it's harder to get a gun, then they may reconsider their method or even not carry out the plan in the first place.

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

Dayum, I wish it was possible. He would wipe the floor with modern pop "artists" (nowadays "artist" is an inaccurate name. It implies that the person creates art, but all they do is sell their voices to be autotuned to somebody else's lyrics and melody, and female "artists" sell their asses to gain popularity. Michael was a true artist in its purest sense). Yep, big MJ fan here
 
PS Maybe a separate topic should be created for this discussion? It's fascinating, but not really politics anymore.

In addition to everything, I think it is a bit hypocritical that creationists are perfectly okay with saying that God, an entity which we have 0 evidence of having ever existed or even existing right now, just came to be out of nothing or has always existed but the universe, which we can currently experience and produce evidence about, can't be perpetual or have been originated out of nothing. If anything, our experience should point us to the direction that things have always existed. As far as I know we seem to be unable to create or destroy matter. I also don't think we have ever seem it be created or destroyed either.

Evolution deals with how organisms change over time and differentiate themselves from one another. It has nothing to do with the origin of life or universe. It only deals with life after it appeared and it has nothing to do with how it was originated. It is even compatible with creationism somewhat if we assume god created the first organisms who then evolved through mutation and natural selection. The origin of everything and evolution are not tied up. To be honest, most of the complaints I see from ordinary people about evolution come from a poor understanding of it.

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.
This is very tiresome, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

Well, the matter that got expanded in the big bang, it had to exist before didn't it? There was a condensed mass of matter before the big bang. Matter existed before, the big bang theory does not say matter was created there, it says the expansion of our universe started there. The beginning you're talking about is the beginning of the expansion, not the beginning of everything. Just the beginning of the universe as we know it.

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.
This is very tiresome, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

Not everything evolved. I'll explain as clearly as I can. In summary, evolution started as soon as there was an organic form of life who could replicate itself and also suffer changes while or after doing so. From this point on evolution started its work. Anything before this was subject to a different phenomena other than evolution. You have point A and point B in time. Point A we have no life on the planet. Point B we have the first living organism. Did it evolve? No, it didn't cause it is the first one to ever exist. Evolution starts after the first living organism replicated, the first one can't be the result of replication and as such can't have evolved. It can have been created by a supernatural being or assembled randomly or anything else really. Something other than evolution happened between point A and B. That's why there are multiple theories for the origin of life even though evolution is almost a scientific truth, it's because these are different things, they explain different things. Are you following? Evolution explains the place where we are now and further back to the the replications and mutations of the first living being. It does not explain or even tries to explain how the first living being came to be. Do you get it now? The fact that we don't know how the first living being came to be does not invalidate evolution because that's not what evolution depicts. That's why evolution is compatible with creationism even.
This is very tiresome, I seem to be repeating the same things over and over and you don't get it. Evolution requires replication and change. If something does not replicate and change it is not the subject of evolution. Evolution starts as soon as an organism was able to replicate and change.

I'm not sure as to what you're referring in there, but we do have CMB to provide evidence of the big bang.
A god, this, i assume, enormous being that sits upon a throne of interstellar medium and engineered all of life, has what exactly to provide evidence to its existence? A book written by men?
All of the universe it's evidence to its existence? And what exactly links it to him? Men's imagination?
Too simplistic. And why choose our people to transfer his words in written material? Out of the surely thousands of life forms out there.
In one of your posts you wrote how without these goldilocks circumstances there would be life. To that sentence i would add "as we know it" There wouldn't be life as we know it.
Too self entitled in my opinion.
Surely if he engineered this beautiful creation, he would have made sure at least on one planet people would know for sure of its existence, as one being and one only; and yet each culture has its own god, maker, whatever you want to name it. So is it only one god, or is it multiple gods out there? Or it's all the same god, only people gave him different names? Or is it god just a makeshift object of our minds, which in their frailty try to explain as best as they can something they cannot yet grasp?
Surely if we would walk together, say in a park, and a lighting out of nowhere would strike the ground near us, you would scoff at me if i would say "Zeus made that!"
And why is that? Because you know, i assume, it's just the product of an electrical storm, not a god who sent that upon us. The greeks, centuries ago would have disagreed, probably the most fanatics would have killed you on the spot, claiming that it was Zeus' will (hyperbole i know).
Surely you can relate the examples to different set of circumstances.
Does god exists? Yes, if you name him chemistry, fundamental forces and chance, and don't believe all of this is some kind of intelligent design.

Yes. I'm more of an agnostic atheist, as such I believe it is possible that there was a creator. Do I think it is likely? No. Especially not a god in the molds of any religion I've seen so far. None of those religions nor their gods look like what I think the creator would have been like or would have wanted to pass to us as a doctrine.
The origin of everything is way harder to guess than the origin of life and there are many theories that look somewhat plausible given how little we know about it. As for myself, I like the superstring theories. Even if the universe and space-time as we know it may have had a beginning and the big bang theory is somewhat right, perhaps the conditions in the background that originated the big bang have always existed before time even began in the big bang. It is difficult for our brains to accept something that doesn't have a beginning because we are wired to believe things start and things end from most of our observations of the natural world. But if you look at it, the concept of God doesn't solve this either, if God created everything, then who created God? Where does he come from? This only leaves the conclusion that He must have always existed. If one can accept something to be perpetual like God, one can also suppose that, instead of the creator, maybe the "creation" has always existed and there was no need for a creator. Maybe the fundamental matter that constitutes everything has always existed and by chance things lined up in a way to cause the big bang and the origin of our universe as we know it. That sounds to me as good or better than a Creator-creation hypothesis.