User talk:Bnaur

User:Bnaur
Talk to me!

See the Realism discussions for latest submissions. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets talk about it - yes evolution is a fact, but so is the fact that more species could be spread across the Universe through genetic engineering and colonization, than would ever naturally occur through the required long periods of evolutionary progress. It is statistically more probable that if advanced life evolved anywhere in the Universe in the first 14 billions years, that it is more likely that other advanced life came from their efforts of seeding and engineering life, than natural and improbable advanced evolution elsewhere (due to that long time period required and the less than 1% probability that it can occur at all).

General religion discussions here. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 05:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and great info that everyone should apply. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk

Good luck. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am amazed how people are blind to their own POV and like the pot calling the kettle black, claim everyone else is using POV when theirs is the one dominating the POV which is skewed, slanted and so obviously so. I took several unbiased people and asked what they thought. Here is one statement from an Atheist via email (without me telling him my position at all - totally unbiased):

I believe the beginning paragraph is biased and not reporting in a scientific way. There is no movement to fundamentally redefine science. There is a movement however to explore the notion that an intelligence whatever that may have directed some of the what we see in the natural world. It’s not saying it is but that it might be. Wow, the scientific community are so afraid of this notion. This the same community who at one time thought the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, but if it doesn’t stand up – teach it and teach why it doesn’t stand up don’t seek it’s expulsion but promote it’s discussion to further understanding, right? Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding snipe comments to a week-old discussion really isn't helpful. You really shouldn't set out to pick fights with other editors. Guettarda (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I knew what you are talking about. But I will take under advisement. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 04:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion who work with NRM in on the discussion of Move/name change/notability/merge discussion on New England Institute of Religious Research Currently 3 users seem to have reached a roadblock in discourse with Cirt (talk · contribs). Any help would be appreciated! Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]