- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ July 12 2010,19:35) Quote (Stu @ July 12 2010,01:41) Ed No, I think it is more likely that Jesus existed. But you cannot know with any confidence anything he actually said. That means you cannot know what bits Jesus told people were right and which were not, and even if you do accept the gospels as a transcript of the utterings of Jesus you cannot know whether Jesus was just making it up anyway.
It is all shabby nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our real heritage and the ethical thinking we developed as a species for the 175,000 years before even the Judeo part of Judeo-christianity was invented.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,There is no such thing as no faith!
You either have faith in YHVH or something else.
I have a personal relationship with YHVH, his Spirit on the inside.You put your faith in Darwinian evolution and
nothing blowing up (big bang) to become everything in order.
But this theory (big bang) flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed I don't base anything on faith, defined as believing without evidence, and there is no contradiction between Big Bang cosmology and any of the laws of thermodynamics as far as I am aware. Perhaps you could explain?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 14 2010,11:28) Quote (Ed J @ July 12 2010,19:35) Quote (Stu @ July 12 2010,01:41) Ed No, I think it is more likely that Jesus existed. But you cannot know with any confidence anything he actually said. That means you cannot know what bits Jesus told people were right and which were not, and even if you do accept the gospels as a transcript of the utterings of Jesus you cannot know whether Jesus was just making it up anyway.
It is all shabby nonsense, and it makes a mockery of our real heritage and the ethical thinking we developed as a species for the 175,000 years before even the Judeo part of Judeo-christianity was invented.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,There is no such thing as no faith!
You either have faith in YHVH or something else.
I have a personal relationship with YHVH, his Spirit on the inside.You put your faith in Darwinian evolution and
nothing blowing up (big bang) to become everything in order.
But this theory (big bang) flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed I don't base anything on faith, defined as believing without evidence, and there is no contradiction between Big Bang cosmology and any of the laws of thermodynamics as far as I am aware. Perhaps you could explain?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why are you putting 'spin' on what faith is?
How can you have confidence without evidence?
Faith is: Action based on belief sustained by confidence.Systems break down into disorder.
The universe, it appears, is speeding up.
You should pay more attention to what YHVH says!
Psalm 104:2 …(YHVH) who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ July 14 2010,11:28) Ed I don't base anything on faith Stuart
Yet to believe in anything being the cause of the universe requires some kind of faith. So that means that if you do not believe in the possible causes (something, someone, nothing) then you don't have a foundation on which to base your atheism on.No foundation to any structure means a weak structure. And because you have no foundation, frame, or context, then you are not qualified to say there is no God, and your atheist belief is relegated to the realm of faith.
Sorry Stu, you can't deny it. You have no foundation to say what you say. It would be wiser for you to be quiet on such matters and speak on things that are not of this nature, at least until you can say what caused the universe. Until then, all your rants are worthless.
You fail to see that your atheist belief requires a type of faith. I would say a false faith, but a faith nevertheless.
Quote (t8 @ July 14 2010,22:03) Quote (Stu @ July 14 2010,11:28) Ed I don't base anything on faith Stuart
Yet to believe in anything being the cause of the universe requires some kind of faith. So that means that if you do not believe in the possible causes (something, someone, nothing) then you don't have a foundation on which to base your atheism on.No foundation to any structure means a weak structure. And because you have no foundation, frame, or context, then you are not qualified to say there is no God, and your atheist belief is relegated to the realm of faith.
Sorry Stu, you can't deny it. You have no foundation to say what you say. It would be wiser for you to be quiet on such matters and speak on things that are not of this nature, at least until you can say what caused the universe. Until then, all your rants are worthless.
You fail to see that your atheist belief requires a type of faith. I would say a false faith, but a faith nevertheless.
t8! Long time no see!I've answered most of this bollocks already t8. I assess the evidence and try to arrive at the explanation that minimises the number of assumptions.
If you accept that there is uncertainty in your own position, and that you would be persuaded to change your mind in the face of evidence to the contrary, and you call that believing on faith, then I will concede that what I do is what you do on faith.
It's not though, is it. I think there is some reason to believe you have shifted your position on evolution by natural selection in the face of evidence, but it is not the radical change that the experience would really demand from someone who took evidence seriously.
Stuart
Ed
Quote Why are you putting 'spin' on what faith is?
I'm not, rather I'm just telling you how I define faith. If you wish to disagree, then please provide the unambigous evidence that supports your god belief. That is not an invitation to give me more nonsense numerology, by the way.Quote How can you have confidence without evidence?
Good question. How do you? Do you achieve that by pretending that numerology gives you clear patterns while forgetting that those patterns were derived by exhaustive trial of phrases that already have some relationship and by ignoring phrases that are equally related but do not add up to the same number?Faith is: Action based on belief sustained by confidence.
Doesn't the anonymous author of Hebrews tell you that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”What credibility does evidence have if you cannot see (or feel or taste or smell or hear) it? As for the “substance of things hoped for” that is the platitude that about sums it up.
Quote Systems break down into disorder.
The universe, it appears, is speeding up.
You should pay more attention to what YHVH says!
Psalm 104:2 …(YHVH) who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Huh? What is this supposed to mean?Stuart
Oh dear… attempt two:
Ed
Quote Why are you putting 'spin' on what faith is?
I'm not, rather I'm just telling you how I define faith. If you wish to disagree, then please provide the unambigous evidence that supports your god belief. That is not an invitation to give me more nonsense numerology, by the way.Quote How can you have confidence without evidence?
Good question. How do you? Do you achieve that by pretending that numerology gives you clear patterns while forgetting that those patterns were derived by exhaustive trial of phrases that already have some relationship and by ignoring phrases that are equally related but do not add up to the same number?Quote Faith is: Action based on belief sustained by confidence.
Doesn't the anonymous author of Hebrews tell you that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”What credibility does evidence have if you cannot see (or feel or taste or smell or hear) it? As for the “substance of things hoped for” that is the platitude that about sums it up.
Quote Systems break down into disorder.
The universe, it appears, is speeding up.
You should pay more attention to what YHVH says!
Psalm 104:2 …(YHVH) who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Huh? What is this supposed to mean?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 14 2010,23:07) t8! Long time no see! I've answered most of this bollocks already t8.
I have never read a reasonable response to what you consider to be the cause of everything. Are you in the someone, nothing, or something camp?Secondly, if you do not hold to any because you do not know, then you are unqualified to say that anyone of them is not feasible.
I have yet to hear you say I believe or accept this option, or to say, that you are unqualified to say that any of them are not possible.
Until then, all your rants can be answered by “you don't have a clue, therefore your rants are also clueless”.
Put this one to bed by saying which option or that you retract all your nonsensical rants about there being no God. Until then, you are officially clueless and not worthy to make such judgements.
Quote (Stu @ July 14 2010,23:25) Ed Doesn't the anonymous author of Hebrews tell you that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Does this not apply to your theory of evolution?
You see no evidence of ape to man, yet you hope for it?And does this not also apply to your big bang theory?
You have not seen the formation of any star or galaxy, yet you hope for it?
So the definition of (Shaool) The Apostle Paul is a correct definition of Faith!Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgStuart,
Please forgive, such a long work week, I am so ready for a Sabbath.
Throughout the week, I have thought many thoughts in regards to you. What am I trying to convey to you, how hard that we are continents apart and he cannot experience my world, for I believe the best way to prove anything is to show and that cannot be with you and I.
I have always been one that pays attention to the little details, abstract thinking some call it, one can get so wrapped up in the norm of things, that they seem to miss the little things.
You have had many conversation with ones on this board, in which I have read. You are knowledgeable in the christian text, how can one think that if you study most everything you would not study the christian bible, is beyond me.
I do however know, that science would have nothing to explore or examine if it was not already here to do so. I do not see how a big bang could create such a world we live in, evolution the thought that comes to mind is a tadpole to a frog, a caterpillar to a butterfly from one species to another. So in general thought, I believe some species are capable of such things, however I do not believe man is.
You speak of patterns and signs, with the footnote that the mind looks for these things when really critical thinking is involved, this I disagree on, for the simple fact of women's intuition. Patterns of behavior can bring conclusions of if there is healing needed in an area of a person's life, if this not be the case most psychologist would be out of work. Patterns of a animals habitat, eating habits, if not be the case most hunters would be still waiting in the bush. I believe the mind can find patterns that are useful and constructive to the world.
Signs, I understand what you mean in regards to christians revealing signs from their text, however, in revelations it does read that one third of the sea will die, hence the spill off the shore of America will prove this to be true, now can one dispute this as coincidence?
But, then again, we can go to another spectrum and state that Nostradamus prediction came true also, so then we get into what prophecy ones believe, I do know that my son feels he will see the destruction of earth, either by the hand of man or the hand of god. What future is that for a young one to deal with, then to tell the child, well it is god's will, then to tell the child well god loves you. When you are a parent, things tend to change a bit in your view of things, especially with a child that tends to ask questions and thinks about such things. It is such a domino effect that is does not stop. How do you give a child hope of the future, when man gives no hope within themselves, that they have not realized that we ourselves can change the what is to come, why can't the chapter of the book end differently, why can't the warnings be taken seriously and bring a different outcome. Is this the fault of the creator or is it of man?
How can someone create something then curse it, what is the sense of the creation. The influence of the christian text on a whole has not benefited mankind, since the beginning there has always been good versus evil, resisting the bad and staying good, finding some magical power to be released to save the human soul.
Remember we spoke of the frog that was at my door, well apparently he spoke to two of his buddies, and now I have three, now some would take this as a curse from god since frogs were part of the plagues of egypt and believe me grandma is one of them. How little do they realize that the spiders now keep their webs a bit higher, that mosquito's are not out and about so much in my yard at night, unwanted insects are not in my garden. The same with bats, I have always wanted to keep bats close to my house, hence a couple of bat boxes, some consider this to be absurd, who wants bats around their house, little do they know how they are the best insect repellent you can buy. What some see as a curse I consider a blessings.
My objective is not to take the christian text and tell you everything in it is true about our creator, only to think for an instance that the text could benefit mankind itself, do not lie, steal, murder, covet, honor one another, even the dietary laws are beneficial to man, the seven deadly sins…….to avoid these would give mankind a new outlook on life. Not all is bad from the text, for being a man of science I do not see why you cannot grasp such concepts.
I am not asking you to fall to your knees and recite the sinners prayer, all I ask of you is to step out of you box of science and take a different view of things, think another way on some subjects. Ask why it was created, what was the need for the creation. Then add your science to it and see what you come up with.
You take care of yourself Stuart.
Quote (t8 @ July 16 2010,12:59) Quote (Stu @ July 14 2010,23:07) t8! Long time no see! I've answered most of this bollocks already t8.
I have never read a reasonable response to what you consider to be the cause of everything. Are you in the someone, nothing, or something camp?Secondly, if you do not hold to any because you do not know, then you are unqualified to say that anyone of them is not feasible.
I have yet to hear you say I believe or accept this option, or to say, that you are unqualified to say that any of them are not possible.
Until then, all your rants can be answered by “you don't have a clue, therefore your rants are also clueless”.
Put this one to bed by saying which option or that you retract all your nonsensical rants about there being no God. Until then, you are officially clueless and not worthy to make such judgements.
Different things have different causes t8. Maybe some things don't even have a cause, don't you think?Stuart
Ed
Stu: Doesn't the anonymous author of Hebrews tell you that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Quote Does this not apply to your theory of evolution?
It is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and it is only based on the evidence of things seen.Quote You see no evidence of ape to man, yet you hope for it?
Well there is no need for ape-to-man evolution, because men ARE one of the five great apes, but evolution is the fact of history contained in the fossil record and molecular evidence, and natural selection is as close to proved as anything can be, by the collective evidence that includes things like endogenous retroviruses that cannot possibly have found their way into our genomes without common descent with modification, but don’t you go worrying about reality now will you Ed, you have your nonsense religious fantasy story and that is all you need to worry your little head about.Unless you have ambitions to understand how the universe works…
Quote And does this not also apply to your big bang theory?
No, Big Bang cosmology predicted we would find background microwave energy left over from that event, and years later it was found exactly as predicted. You can listen to it on FM radio between stations at around 100MHz, or watch a detuned TV: about 4% of the little black and white dots are from that Big Bang microwave radiation. No I am not making this up.Quote You have not seen the formation of any star or galaxy, yet you hope for it?
We do see star formation happening, and in a few years, with the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope we will be able to see the radio waves that were produced when the first stars formed, which is a slightly different process from how subsequent stars have formed.Quote So the definition of (Shaool) The Apostle Paul is a correct definition of Faith!
Saul of Tarsus was an ignorant zealot who was trying to get political power off Peter Simon and others. Why do you give him a second thought? Radio astronomy alone is much more interesting!Stuart
Hi P of the K
Quote Throughout the week, I have thought many thoughts in regards to you. What am I trying to convey to you, how hard that we are continents apart and he cannot experience my world, for I believe the best way to prove anything is to show and that cannot be with you and I. I have always been one that pays attention to the little details, abstract thinking some call it, one can get so wrapped up in the norm of things, that they seem to miss the little things.
You have had many conversation with ones on this board, in which I have read. You are knowledgeable in the christian text, how can one think that if you study most everything you would not study the christian bible, is beyond me.
I do however know, that science would have nothing to explore or examine if it was not already here to do so. I do not see how a big bang could create such a world we live in, evolution the thought that comes to mind is a tadpole to a frog, a caterpillar to a butterfly from one species to another. So in general thought, I believe some species are capable of such things, however I do not believe man is.
It is important to understand, as a wise person pointed out to me many years ago, that just because one cannot understand it, it does not mean it did not happen that way. Although science can be thought of as the body of knowledge built up by the application of the scientific method, really most scientists would consider science to be a verb.Evolution is not a tadpole to a frog, the two are operating from the same set of genes, they are the same species. What Darwin was writing about was how one species gives rise to one or more new species over vast lengths of time, accumulating large numbers of the most subtle changes in the genome as they go.
Quote You speak of patterns and signs, with the footnote that the mind looks for these things when really critical thinking is involved, this I disagree on, for the simple fact of women's intuition. Patterns of behavior can bring conclusions of if there is healing needed in an area of a person's life, if this not be the case most psychologist would be out of work. Patterns of a animals habitat, eating habits, if not be the case most hunters would be still waiting in the bush. I believe the mind can find patterns that are useful and constructive to the world.
Yes, it would be wrong to say that human pattern-seeking is bad: it is the basis for our social lives in the way we find food or recognise others’ faces. The problem is it is powerful and does not discriminate between patterns and coincidence, which we are notoriously bad at assessing. Just take a national lottery. If we had a proper feeling for coincidence and probability no one would ever buy a ticket and no one would ever fear flying in an aircraft.Quote Signs, I understand what you mean in regards to christians revealing signs from their text, however, in revelations it does read that one third of the sea will die, hence the spill off the shore of America will prove this to be true, now can one dispute this as coincidence?
Has the spill actually caused “a third of the sea to die”? You are seeing a pattern that really is not even true.Quote But, then again, we can go to another spectrum and state that Nostradamus prediction came true also, so then we get into what prophecy ones believe, I do know that my son feels he will see the destruction of earth, either by the hand of man or the hand of god.
When I was at school our social studies textbooks had maps of New Zealand with concentric circles that described the devastation that would happen at various distances from the explosion of a nuclear weapon. We all thought we would see the destruction of the world (although surely not the planet itself) but it has not happened. Actually we are much further from it than we were in 1963, and I’m sure the same predictions of end times were made then.Regarding Nostradamus, the Holy Wikipedia contains this analysis: “ Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus's quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.”
Quote What future is that for a young one to deal with, then to tell the child, well it is god's will, then to tell the child well god loves you. When you are a parent, things tend to change a bit in your view of things, especially with a child that tends to ask questions and thinks about such things. It is such a domino effect that is does not stop. How do you give a child hope of the future, when man gives no hope within themselves, that they have not realized that we ourselves can change the what is to come, why can't the chapter of the book end differently, why can't the warnings be taken seriously and bring a different outcome. Is this the fault of the creator or is it of man? How can someone create something then curse it, what is the sense of the creation. The influence of the christian text on a whole has not benefited mankind, since the beginning there has always been good versus evil, resisting the bad and staying good, finding some magical power to be released to save the human soul.
Remember we spoke of the frog that was at my door, well apparently he spoke to two of his buddies, and now I have three, now some would take this as a curse from god since frogs were part of the plagues of egypt and believe me grandma is one of them. How little do they realize that the spiders now keep their webs a bit higher, that mosquito's are not out and about so much in my yard at night, unwanted insects are not in my garden. The same with bats, I have always wanted to keep bats close to my house, hence a couple of bat boxes, some consider this to be absurd, who wants bats around their house, little do they know how they are the best insect repellent you can buy. What some see as a curse I consider a blessings.
My objective is not to take the christian text and tell you everything in it is true about our creator, only to think for an instance that the text could benefit mankind itself, do not lie, steal, murder, covet, honor one another, even the dietary laws are beneficial to man, the seven deadly sins…….to avoid these would give mankind a new outlook on life. Not all is bad from the text, for being a man of science I do not see why you cannot grasp such concepts.
We will have significant issues to deal with. It is certain that, whether our scientific knowledge has got us into the mess (I always blame engineers: they put the knowledge into practice!) we will not get out of the mess without the application of science.The dietary
laws are not of benefit, by the way. The most absurdly political and pointless is the law that requires Jews not to drink wine made by non-Jews. You could argue the one about completely bleeding a carcass: the reason this is done today is a scientific one, as it was in ancient times. The only difference is that we have an explanation for that ancient observation.Quote I am not asking you to fall to your knees and recite the sinners prayer, all I ask of you is to step out of you box of science and take a different view of things, think another way on some subjects. Ask why it was created, what was the need for the creation. Then add your science to it and see what you come up with.
If I ask the question “why was it created?” then you are asking me to jump into a different box, one that adds unsupported assumptions about the world. “Why was it created?” contains the logical fallacy of begging the question of whether it was created or not. If we are talking about things for which there is no evidence of creation, surely the question should be “why is it there?”, which is the scientific question anyway. You seem to be building a box that is doubly guilty of insular thinking.Stuart
Quote It is important to understand, as a wise person pointed out to me many years ago, that just because one cannot understand it, it does not mean it did not happen that way. I am sorry Stuart, this one has me. To replace the subject matter and apply another, sounds very familiar to me.
Quote
Although science can be thought of as the body of knowledge built up by the application of the scientific method, really most scientists would consider science to be a verb.The verb reflects the action/reaction of the subject, even a command verb would still reflect on a subject. Hence a verb is quite useless without it's subject.
Quote Yes, it would be wrong to say that human pattern-seeking is bad: it is the basis for our social lives in the way we find food or recognize others’ faces. The problem is it is powerful and does not discriminate between patterns and coincidence, which we are notoriously bad at assessing.
I do not disagree, if one mind set cannot take all parallels/comparisons and sort them, then yes it is a waste of productive thinking.
Quote
Just take a national lottery. If we had a proper feeling for coincidence and probability no one would ever buy a ticket and no one would ever fear flying in an aircraft.Alas, I cannot comprehend the need for lotteries, waste of money and time, for the record I do not see the need to gamble whatsoever.
Although I disagree with feelings of coincidence and probability, this would go against what I teach my son know your surroundings and what surrounds you.Quote Has the spill actually caused “a third of the sea to die”? You are seeing a pattern that really is not even true. You have data/proof that the effects of this spill will not harm a percentage of america's shore. What pattern is this that you see, oil spill in large body of water, pattern kill sea life.
Quote When I was at school our social studies textbooks had maps of New Zealand with concentric circles that described the devastation that would happen at various distances from the explosion of a nuclear weapon. We all thought we would see the destruction of the world (although surely not the planet itself) but it has not happened. Actually we are much further from it than we were in 1963, and I’m sure the same predictions of end times were made then. As I attended church with hell and brimstone ringing in my ears………………..
Quote Regarding Nostradamus, the Holy Wikipedia contains this analysis: “ Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus's quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.” Must we not forget there are others theories as well. There is always two sides to a story, how each one convinces the other that their theory is true is a whole complex subject within itself.
Quote We will have significant issues to deal with. It is certain that, whether our scientific knowledge has got us into the mess (I always blame engineers: they put the knowledge into practice!) we will not get out of the mess without the application of science. Science comes from man's ability to grasp knowledge of a subject, yeah its a rock, now what do I do with it, nothing, next subject. Not grasping the concept you are trying to convey.
Quote The dietary laws are not of benefit, by the way. Well, you enjoy those bottom feeders if you want, no thanks. Yuck !!!
Quote
The most absurdly political and pointless is the law that requires Jews not to drink wine made by non-Jews.Have one better, there is to be one blue string through the tassels, that is placed on each corner of the garment, however the only blue dye available at the time came from oysters, the jews had the non jews do the work to produce the dye, for it was an abomination for them to touch such things. But then again, I do not go around picking up dead carcases either.
Quote
You could argue the one about completely bleeding a carcass: the reason this is done today is a scientific one, as it was in ancient times. The only difference is that we have an explanation for that ancient observation.Like I have said Stuart you are much better a science, blood was not for science in ancient times, there was great significance in the matter. By my understanding keeping the blood causes rapid deterioration, so to preserve the food supply, why would one not do this. On another note, the ancient text has instructions that say do not eat certain animals do to they eat blood of another, once it was accepted a written in stone, then science came along and explained the reason why. So I will disagree with you on this, if you don't mind.
Quote If I ask the question “why was it created?” then you are asking me to jump into a different box, one that adds unsupported assumptions about the world. “Why was it created?” contains the logical fallacy of begging the question of whether it was created or not. If we are talking about things for which there is no evidence of creation, surely the question should be “why is it there?”, which is the scientific question anyway. why is it there and what is the need of it?
Quote You seem to be building a box that is doubly guilty of insular thinking. Your insults are always so proper Stuart, thank you.
Quote (Stu @ July 18 2010,19:51) Ed Stu: Doesn't the anonymous author of Hebrews tell you that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Quote Does this not apply to your theory of evolution?
It is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and it is only based on the evidence of things seen.Quote You see no evidence of ape to man, yet you hope for it?
Well there is no need for ape-to-man evolution, because men ARE one of the five great apes, but evolution is the fact of history contained in the fossil record and molecular evidence, and natural selection is as close to proved as anything can be, by the collective evidence that includes things like endogenous retroviruses that cannot possibly have found their way into our genomes without common descent with modification, but don’t you go worrying about reality now will you Ed, you have your nonsense religious fantasy story and that is all you need to worry your little head about.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Since it is seen as you claim what was man before he was an ape?
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ July 18 2010,19:51) Ed Quote And does this not also apply to your big bang theory?
No, Big Bang cosmology predicted we would find background microwave energy left over from that event, and years later it was found exactly as predicted. You can listen to it on FM radio between stations at around 100MHz, or watch a detuned TV: about 4% of the little black and white dots are from that Big Bang microwave radiation. No I am not making this up.Quote You have not seen the formation of any star or galaxy, yet you hope for it?
We do see star formation happening, and in a few years, with the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope we will be able to see the radio waves that were produced when the first stars formed, which is a slightly different process from how subsequent stars have formed.Quote So the definition of (Shaool) The Apostle Paul is a correct definition of Faith!
Saul of Tarsus was an ignorant zealot who was trying to get political power off Peter Simon and others. Why do you give him a second thought? Radio astronomy alone is much more interesting!Stuart
Hi Stuart,More like as science advances more and more scientists will believe in GOD!
I already have much proof documented!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ July 19 2010,10:59) Quote (Stu @ July 18 2010,19:51) Ed Quote And does this not also apply to your big bang theory?
No, Big Bang cosmology predicted we would find background microwave energy left over from that event, and years later it was found exactly as predicted. You can listen to it on FM radio between stations at around 100MHz, or watch a detuned TV: about 4% of the little black and white dots are from that Big Bang microwave radiation. No I am not making this up.Quote You have not seen the formation of any star or galaxy, yet you hope for it?
We do see star formation happening, and in a few years, with the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope we will be able to see the radio waves that were produced when the first stars formed, which is a slightly different process from how subsequent stars have formed.Quote So the definition of (Shaool) The Apostle Paul is a correct definition of Faith!
Saul of Tarsus was an ignorant zealot who was trying to get political power off Peter Simon and others. Why do you give him a second thought? Radio astronomy alone is much more interesting!Stuart
Hi Stuart,More like as science advances more and more scientists will believe in GOD!
I already have much proof documented!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
So what? It would not matter if Richard Dawkins converted to evangelical christianity tomorrow, it would not make the existence of your Imaginary Sky Friend more likely, would it.Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ July 19 2010,10:58) Quote (Stu @ July 18 2010,19:51) Ed Stu: Doesn't the anonymous author of Hebrews tell you that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Quote Does this not apply to your theory of evolution?
It is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and it is only based on the evidence of things seen.Quote You see no evidence of ape to man, yet you hope for it?
Well there is no need for ape-to-man evolution, because men ARE one of the five great apes, but evolution is the fact of history contained in the fossil record and molecular evidence, and natural selection is as close to proved as anything can be, by the collective evidence that includes things like endogenous retroviruses that cannot possibly have found their way into our genomes without common descent with modification, but don’t you go worrying about reality now will you Ed, you have your nonsense religious fantasy story and that is all you need to worry your little head about.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Since it is seen as you claim what was man before he was an ape?
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
The answer is “a type of ape”, no matter how far back into the past 25 million years you go. Between 30 million years and 40 million years ago you might start to call our ancestors types of monkey rather than types of ape, and earlier than that they were a bit like lemurs.At the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs our ancestor looked something like a shrew.
Thank you for asking!
Stuart
Just a footnote:
The Greek philospher, Thales consider to be Father of Philosophy, now remember Stuart, in these times a philospher (origin of philosophia, gr. love of wisdom, which included science) student Anaximander concluded that all living creatures had come from the water, that we had evolved from fish, due to his observation of mammalian characters of sea creatures.
An interesting character, Thales. Even though his conclusions do not agree with the modern view, they were valid given the limited data he was able to collect.
Stuart
Actually Stuart, the scientific outlook and methods are derived from Greek Philosophers, the same that are used today.
'That human ability to decipher the physical laws that governed the universe, as well as a willingness to formulate, debate, and test unorthodox theories.'
So do not be too harsh on the philosophers, they were the beginning of your science.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
