Cosmic fingerprints

[Proclaimer]

Sure I will be willing to debate that. Just don't expect quick replies. I might be quick, I might not, but I will debate. Go ahead and set it up and stipulate the rules that you want people (or just myself) to adhere to.

[seekingtruth]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2010,00:45)

Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 10 2010,00:59) Stu, Quote Can see oxygen (it is pale blue and magnetic when liquified).  Can't see gods. Stuart From what you said you have to see something to believe it, so prior to the ability to sufficiently cool and liquefy oxygen you couldn't see it. Thus to follow your reasoning, the unseen (like God) does not exist. Wm There was no concept of “oxygen” until it was discovered, ie until there was evidence for it. There are many god concepts but no unambiguous evidence for any of them. Stuart

There was evidence all along, it was just misinterpreted.

Kind of like with you… surrounded with evidence yet clinging to your 'religion's' beliefs no matter how improbable that statistics or common sense says it is.

Wm

[Stu]

Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 12 2010,04:13)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2010,00:45) Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 10 2010,00:59) Stu, Quote Can see oxygen (it is pale blue and magnetic when liquified).  Can't see gods. Stuart From what you said you have to see something to believe it, so prior to the ability to sufficiently cool and liquefy oxygen you couldn't see it. Thus to follow your reasoning, the unseen (like God) does not exist. Wm There was no concept of “oxygen” until it was discovered, ie until there was evidence for it. There are many god concepts but no unambiguous evidence for any of them. Stuart There was evidence all along, it was just misinterpreted. Kind of like with you… surrounded with evidence yet clinging to your 'religion's' beliefs no matter how improbable that statistics or common sense says it is. Wm

You said oxygen, and oxygen is a word used to describe a specific chemical element, discovered at a specific point in history based on conclusions made from specific experiments, not just from a general historical sense of being able to breathe or whatever.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Stu, you are like a fish who says “I don't believe in water”.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2010,07:59)

Stu, you are like a fish who says “I don't believe in water”.

So you believe in talking fish as well as talking snakes.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Ha ha. Like the thinking that says only that which is visible exists, now you are saying that “saying” is only audible. You can say things in your mind, did you not know that?

And am I saying something to you now, even though I am not audibly talking to you right now.

Hey here's an idea. Why don't you admit you were wrong. Oh hang on, you can't because you are not saying anything.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2010,17:33)

Ha ha. Like the thinking that says only that which is visible exists, now you are saying that “saying” is only audible. You can say things in your mind, did you not know that? And am I saying something to you now, even though I am not audibly talking to you right now. Hey here's an idea. Why don't you admit you were wrong. Oh hang on, you can't because you are not saying anything.

Putting facile absurdity to one side for a minute, I am happy to include any form of meaningful communication as “talking”.

Do fish “talk” to you t8 as a snake and a donkey were allegedly able to talk with humans in the OT? Maybe they type out what they want to “say” on a keyboard for you because they do not have appropriately proportioned vocal cords.

I'm not getting your message clearly, t8: are you denying that a snake was able to talk, or not?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Funny how you changed the word 'say' for 'talk' and then go on about a fish talking.

'Say' can be used to assume as a hypothesis. Also, are you not having your say on this topic, yet I don't hear you talking.

I guess Stu, you have nothing to say in response to this post because we are not talking.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 15 2010,14:15)

Funny how you changed the word 'say' for 'talk' and then go on about a fish talking. 'Say' can be used to assume as a hypothesis. Also, are you not having your say on this topic, yet I don't hear you talking. I guess Stu, you have nothing to say in response to this post because we are not talking.

So back to the question, are you denying that there was a talking snake and a talking donkey?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Are you talking to me?

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2010,16:15)

Are you talking to me?

Well I did post it under a quote of yours, and I am neither a donkey nor a snake, although I am a talking ape, so yes.

Stuart

[princess of the king]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2010,18:55)

Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 10 2010,10:17) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 08 2010,19:41) Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 08 2010,00:39) Quote Well there is no need for love in anything, is there? Pardon the interruption Stuart, just for clarification, could you laymen your thoughts on this one. Thank you in advance. Yes.  An example might be the few evangelical creationists who bite their tongues and complete a PhD in a biological science just so they can use the credibility of a PhD to support their lies about natural history.  For most biologists a PhD is a work of love.  For these creationists there is no love for the subject, they are just out to deceive.  Sad really.  I imagine a few of them are turned off creationism by the astonishment and wonder of these sciences, but there will be some dullard religious liars with just enough brains to jump through the hoops who make it back to the creation museum with a real qualification.  Of course everything they learned, including their own research for the doctorate are things they will have to lie about to others. Is laymen an American verb?  Like burglarize, which is a respectable noun that has been corrupted? Stuart Stuart, You know your audience, don't play coy. Come on big fella, give it a go, tell me truly what you think love is. Princess Love is orange. Stuart

Stuart,

For one that profess' speculation of how the universe came about, to explain love is so difficult for you.

If you would don't skim over this Stuart, read the passage please.

1Co 13:1  If I speak in the tongues of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal.
1Co 13:2  If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3  Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.
1Co 13:4  Love is always patient, Love is always kind, Love is never envious Or vaunted up with pride. Nor is she conceited,
1Co 13:5  And never is she rude, Never does she think of self Or ever get annoyed. She never is resentful,
1Co 13:6  Is never glad with sin, But always glad to side with truth, Whene'er the truth should win.
1Co 13:7  She bears up under everything, Believes the best in all, There is no limit to her hope, And never will she fall.
1Co 13:8  Love never fails. Now if there are prophecies, they will be done away with. If there are tongues, they will cease. If there is knowledge, it will be done away with.
1Co 13:9  For what we know is incomplete and what we prophesy is incomplete.
1Co 13:10  But when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with.
1Co 13:11  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways.
1Co 13:12  Now we see only a blurred reflection in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.
1Co 13:13  Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Take care of yourself Stuart.

[Stu]

PoftheK you would not be assuming that I had not read Cor 13 before I quoted it myself earlier, would you?

Note that it does not explain love!

Stuart

[princess of the king]

niether does orange Stuart.

[Stu]

Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 22 2010,09:12)

niether does orange Stuart.

You asked for a description, not an explanation.

I described love as orange. I didn't say orange was the explanation!

The explanation is that love is pink.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Hi Stuart,

You haven't made many Posts lately my friend; why?
Have you been busy?

Ed J

[Ed J]

Hi Stuart,

Here is more PROOF of God's existence (as there is much) for you Stuart… Click Here
You keep saying there is no Proof, but this is FALSE, spoken on your part in ignorance.
Prob.18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Prov:25:2: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 15 2010,17:21)

So back to the question, are you denying that there was a talking snake and a talking donkey?

Ask a zoologist if animals talk?
After all, you are only interested in physical science.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2010,20:35)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 15 2010,17:21) So back to the question, are you denying that there was a talking snake and a talking donkey? Ask a zoologist if animals talk? After all, you are only interested in physical science.

Is that an answer? Have there ever been talking snakes and/or donkeys, t8?

Stuart

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 23 2010,22:37)

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2010,20:35) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 15 2010,17:21) So back to the question, are you denying that there was a talking snake and a talking donkey? Ask a zoologist if animals talk? After all, you are only interested in physical science. Is that an answer?  Have there ever been talking snakes and/or donkeys, t8? Stuart

I saw Francis the talking mule with my own eyes.
It must be true.

Tim

[Author]

Posts