• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Hello! That explains the confusion! I understand the 1 for 1 trade idea yet I think an Enigma Berry is definitely worth more than a Snowball or Sticky Barb. I am willing to trade 1 for both of your items. If that doesn't work, then that would be a real shame!
    Looks like the big day's here. I'll be using lots of random mixed stuff, so mixed tiers sound great. And keep that XY fever alive, too!
    I would trade one Enigma Berry for Snowball and Sticky Barb if you would be interested. Happy to keep negotiating though, it's fun! :)
    Hello! I just updated the post as I have got a Luminous Moss and Float Stone now and I'm afraid an Enigma Berry is worth a little more than a Snowball. If you can get something else though or perhaps any of the other things I'm looking for, then we could definitely reach a deal! :)
    Maybe an entry in the column "religiously-based disavowal of climate change"? I've no trouble believing both you and I could simply have been mistaken, but... I still wouldn't write off politics as a motivation with this piece. Anyway, just thought you'd be interested. Take care!
    I don't know if you watched the February debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, but there is a quote from Ham that I have just wanted to share with someone who could appreciate the silliness of it. Ham said, "When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn’t mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away!" I laughed when I first read that. ^_^;

    Oh yeah, I've read about the conflation of different kinds of evolution. There are many science-illiterate folks in our country who have not learned enough to recognize the difference between cosmological evolution of the infant universe, the evolution of individual stars, and biological evolution. There are ample instances of individuals hearing the word "evolution" and decrying the whole conversation sight unseen, which threatens science education in fields beyond biology. This is, imo, largely a problem of education - but at the same time it is difficult to teach those who don't want to learn.

    Ah, GMO stuff? I... am not usually interested in GMO discussions. I frequent a blog by Steve Novella (Neurologica), and he often weighs in on the GMO conversation, but I often find myself skipping those posts, hehe. At least as far as food goes. If we are talking animals, I can be persuaded to pay attention. ^_^;
    You really do seem to have a terrific memory capacity, TFP. I wish I could say the same about myself. =P

    Ah, okay. Then, yes, I guess - assuming Christian theology in the first place - the hypothesis that sacrifice to God would show some earthly effect would be a groundless one to make, and not possible to test fairly. By the by, I also feel obliged to point out that a lack of results from Hebrew sacrifice would make for insufficient evidence of the proposed truth of Christianity and any technicalities therein, because it also supports the proposed truth of there being no deities at all to respond to any sacrifices (especially in light of your comment about how the complementary confirming test - sacrifice in the name of Christianity - would be impossible). ;P

    Good night, then! ^_^
    Jeez, you remember more of my posts than I do, haha. As far as testing the efficacy of ritual sacrifice, I'm sure some close-to-sound-as-possible validity checks are out there. We could, in theory, use as the population only those people who have documented lives as devout believers in a given denomination (presumably one that accommodates sacrifice in its theology). But I won't think too far down this mental path, since I doubt both the underlying premise and the usefulness of the test itself.

    May I ask which sorts of careless statements you have in mind? The first explanation that comes to mind for why a Christian might reject the BBT is because the reality of deep time is integral to it. I'm sure more than just YE creationists reject it, though. Unless you have another theory (which I'm interested in hearing, if you do), I'd be inclined to think it's a result of anti-science sentiment among the American faithful, as purposefully drummed up and encouraged by the political far right (and inadvertently by people like Coyne himself and their insistence on setting science at odds with religion).
    Next Saturday sounds good to me. If you've got enough lower-tiered Pokemon, we could even do a UU battle or something. Maybe even a PVS one, heh.
    That PP Max was a delightful bonus, but you were already doing me a favor anyway, hah. XP

    On sacrifices: What is the point or purpose of atonement? Was the anticipated result of atoning for one's transgressions explicitly and only getting to Heaven? I would be surprised if there was not at least an implicit expectation of divine favor (or at least avoided disfavor) on the earthly plane. If not, then you have a fair point.

    (1) I think you're right. I don't exactly hear much specifically religiously-derived criticism of global warming. If anything, the topic occasionally gets dragged into conservative fulminations and thereby associated with religion simply because conservative politics in the US is saturated with it.

    (2) I have actually read the intermittent religiously-inspired resistance to the BBT, so I think Coyne is okay on that one. Although I have to say I don't get why Christianity would argue against it. In regards to Catholicism, as you say, I've known intelligent Catholics to argue that the BBT is the physical manifestation of the act of creation: the beginning of time and space, full of heat and light, all of the future universe contained in that one unique moment. If you really wanted to match Scripture with science, it seems to me like one of the more feasible instances with which to do it. =P
    By the by, the very next Egg that hatched after our last PM was female. I'm ready to send your Eevee home if you are. =)
    Aha, I'm glad to have provided something you enjoyed reading so much, TFP, and that you find so much to agree with.

    In what way was the mention of animal sacrifice and the other ritual practices an error, though? If there is not supposed to be any detectable effect of such practices, why do any religions bother with them? And if there were more errors you caught, what were they?

    When you say he jumped into philosophical traps, do you mean with enthusiasm, as in, "He jumped into his new career," or do you mean his own arguments fall to the logical criticisms he applied to religious arguments? As far as the disparities between competing religious truth claims, he says he thinks it calls into doubt the truth of each. If you, as he almost certainly does, consider those disparate truths in light of the lack of convincing empirical evidence proffered in defense of them, doubt is entirely reasonable. Also, what were the issues with his defense of naturalism, and do you mean philosophical or methodological naturalism? Barbara Forrest on naturalism is, in my experience, good philosophy.

    To tie up, correct me if I am mistaken: you largely agree with Coyne's conclusion that the problem facing scientific literacy in the US is high religiosity, itself an effect of our social dysfunction? And could you describe to me where he fails to operate within the definition of religion he gave at the top of page 2655? Anyway, I am still curious about your estimate of the fundamental problem.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…