06 Mar 06
Originally posted by corp1131Yeah, but stick with me corp - it gets awefully lonely in the intellectual wilderness at times! (Don't worry, I'm not going to go all 'Brokeback Mountain in you'!) You've got alot of good sense ideas, and I'd welcome your input, even if it's only to pick up my 1st year degree chemistry occassionally!!!
I completley agree, I wasn't disputing your point, merely the point micarr made, I should have put "doesn't dissolve very well" in seawater in my last post. Keep fighting scottishinnz, im sure someone with a background in biology has a much better chance of rubbishing the claims that IDers/Creationists/idiots make than I do (unless they start spewing the 2nd law of thermodynamics crap again..)!
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTheories of how the current state of affairs on eartth have came to pass haven't really wholesale changed in the last 50 years or so probably. Merely cosmetic changes.
[b]I keep hearing this term "direct observation" bandied about by creationists as if such a thing exists.
As in your other post relative to saving faith, you are onto something here, realtive to the salient point of the beginning.
We have no more proof of George Bush than we do of George Washington. Until we personally meet either of them, we are ...[text shortened]... shivering and quite embarassed to have been so-exposed: from whence did the matter arise?[/b]
As for "where matter come from", if the Big Bang theory is correct, and we've little reason to disbelieve it currently, then "where did matter come from?" is not really a valid question. Time and space are a continuum, 'before' the Big Bang neither time nor space existed, nothing existed. And then, at some point, with no reason (or possibly no reason that we can understand), everything spontaneously came into being. Now, I appreciate that the fundies are going to say "but that can't just happen". Well, it can. It did. That's really all there is too it. You guys tend to seem to have a problem frequently understanding even 19th century science, let alone 20th and 21st century science, but that's the long and short of it. If you DID understand 21st Century science, you'd realise that there could be no scientific cause for the big bang because absolultely nothing existed. Not even the vaccuum of space. Not even the space. Nothing, nada. Zero. Absolutely.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzTrue. The depraved and reprobate mind that you were born with is renewed.
God is a reality for those that know Him. As long as you accept Him you are outside of your mind.
That is why you cannot know God and not have a transformed mind. That is actually one of the first things that God heals.
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerReally, I'm not so much. If you didn't make such painfully irrational arguments, you'd find that I'm a pretty open-minded, critical thinking type of guy.
Why try to drag yourself up to my level? 😉
You can hardly say that you are not 'fundamentalistic' about your views.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzTheories of how the current state of affairs on eartth have came to pass haven't really wholesale changed in the last 50 years or so probably. Merely cosmetic changes.
I'd agree with you, Scott, if it weren't for the fact that theories are constantly heralded and then discarded at an increasingly faster rates. One error (previously dogmatically accepted as undeniable) correction led to the age of the universe being doubled overnight! And even then, we weren't through tweaking our instruments.
And then, at some point, with no reason (or possibly no reason that we can understand), everything spontaneously came into being.
No reason we can understand. You take that on faith, it can be assumed?
Now, I appreciate that the fundies are going to say "but that can't just happen". Well, it can. It did. That's really all there is too it.
You surely apprectiate the irony, no doubt, of this postulation. To say, "that's really all there is to it," is akin to saying, "and then, a miracle occured." Just like a fundie.
because absolultely nothing existed. Not even the vaccuum of space. Not even the space. Nothing, nada. Zero. Absolutely.
Just like it says in the Bible. Go figure.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemSure: it's possible that I have experienced a frontal lobotomy. Taking that as a given, however, how would you explain the apparent dichotomy?
Sounds like a frontal lobotomy.
Would you say the acknowledged great minds of the past two thousand years who recognized Jesus Christ as Lord and Creator all experienced frontal lobotomies? Or, is it just us morons here?
Perhaps I am just an idiot savant, sans my frontal lobe, yet able to conduct high-level business, maintain a safe and productive working environment for hundreds of people, negotiate and implement company policies and procedures, navigate a car to and from work, find the start button on a computer, tie my shoes all by myself (after I put my pants on), and hardly ever mistake the women's room for the men's.
Otherwise, of course, I'm an idiot, simply because I believe in the Bible as the word of God, have accepted His so-great salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, and continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Him.
Cool: I'm an idiot, then.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
07 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH😀 We are fools for Christ's sake!
Sure: it's possible that I have experienced a frontal lobotomy. Taking that as a given, however, how would you explain the apparent dichotomy?
Would you say the acknowledged great minds of the past two thousand years who recognized Jesus Christ as Lord and Creator all experienced frontal lobotomies? Or, is it just us morons here?
Perhaps I am just an i hrist, and continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Him.
Cool: I'm an idiot, then.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually my intention was to point out that even though you have met him you still dont know he exists and have absolutely no proof. Many of us tend to believe things based on the quantity of "evidence" we have and how much that "evidence" makes sense to use and whether that "evidence" contradicts or reinforces other "evidence" that we have either discarded as false or accepted as fact. Some assumptions are always made, for example the assumption that we exist. We may actually be just programmes in a "matrix" like world!
We have no more proof of George Bush than we do of George Washington. Until we personally meet either of them, we are taking others' accounts as the fact of their existence, and then, that proof is only good to the person who made contact.
My point was that when you see George Bush on tv you believe he exists, when you look up at the stars at night you believe they exist (though Halitose seems sceptical about that).
When I see a fosil in the ground I not only believe it exists but that it is the result of a dead life form.
The evidence for evolution is no less or more "direct evidence" than the evidence that George Bush exists or even that your closest friend exists.