 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
note in the arguments about creationism there is two main areas
creation of the universe, and creation of the earth and things on the earth
one seems to battle evolution (but there are ways it does not have to)
the other can coexist with physics and evolution easily, and actually might be required by physics (which I don't think it will be but the physics theories which explain the beggining without any creation aspect are highly hypothetical)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adalbertus
You cannot prove absolute skepticism wrong, first, because it denies you the use of logic (in the case of Descartes), but also the use of a set of axioms. You can only show that it doesn't lead to anything, and so virtually any other system is superior (and if only because it can be proven wrong).
|
Here is something I feel is only remotely relevent to this topic and Descartes. But relevant nonetheless.
What if there was cosmic significance in the fact that god is dog spelled backwards? Massacre and mascara are intriguingly similar Mr. DesCartes so what do you mean when you claim 'I drink therefor I am'?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
now would an observer would had all the knowledge and understanding of our most brilliant physicists at the moment of their birth beleive in a creator?
I think that answer to that is different, which would be some percentage either way
Jon Miller |
Considering how many of our most brilliant physicists are agnostic or atheist I suspect the percentage of believers in a creator would be quite low.
Same for biologists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Considering how many of our most brilliant physicists are agnostic or atheist I suspect the percentage of believers in a creator would be quite low.
Same for biologists. |
overall sceintist who are atheists or agnostics are at the same level as it was in 1900, when it was stupid and highly illogical to be an atheist or an agnostic
currently, when it is somewhat reasonable (there is at least a reasonable alternative although it is highly hypothetical currently) to not beleive in a creator, a similar number of scientists are atheist/agnostic
in 1900 that field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics was biology where a little over 40% were agnostics/atheists
currently (or at least in 2000), physics was the field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics, once more at a little over 40%
this is not even a majority
overall percentage of scientists who were atheist/agnostic has be fairly quite a bit lower than that of the field with the largest percentage
and of those that beleive in god, almost all beleive in a creator
for example, among those that have come up with the theories that do not require a creator for the start of the universe there are many who beleive in God the creator, they jstu beleive that he chose to have the universe come into being in that fashion
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Sorry, I probably don't see your point here. Moreover, I'm German and Gott isn't Hund spelled backwards and Massaker is only remotely similar to Maske. |
I see. German. A nation not noted for humor. At least by Americans and Brits.
I am half german. But I am also Irish and Irish-Americans make up a larger percentage of American comedians.
Jokes based on quirks of language travel poorly anyway. The point was the similarity of the words. For some reason people ocassionaly find deep significance in the fact that GOD is the mirror of DOG.
quote:
I think this doesn't work because you are simply stating facts and are posing questions. |
Neither. I am making a funny. If I explain it anymore even the people that understood the jokes will get bored.
quote:
But as you think you're drinking, you are again in the same argument. |
Even if I was drinking I actually wrote that a long time ago for a different discussion on creationism.
I think it was in this one.
http://forums.prospero.com/maxcommp...ges?msg=21562.1
There are six thousands posts in it so don't bother trying to read it. Over there I am either ETHLRED or Ethelred(hardrede).
For some reason I don't like drinking anything alcholic. Nothing moral I just find that evey time I try I want a Coka Cola. So I gave up trying.
quote:
What you have to keep in mind with the Bible even if you believe in the Bible as the direct Word of God, is that He spake to men in their time. |
What I keep in mind is that it is men that say god had anything to do with the Bible.
quote:
There was no way to tell Moses about a big bang or evolution or genetics. Moses wouldn't have understood or worse, he would have misunderstood. |
Well he got it wrong however he got it.
quote:
For a lawyer or judge the source of all laws (at least the good ones ). |
Not in the US. Here those are the ones to watch out for.
quote:
For Einstein the one who created all the riddles for physicists. |
Einstein used the word god but he wasn't religous. He used god like I would use nature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Just wanted to post this quote form British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. He has done a lot of work of theories dealing with life coming to earth form space. This was a lecture he gave at the California Institute Of Technology.
"The big problem in bology isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protien consists of a certain chain of amino acids linked togather in a certain way, but that the explixit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkble properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links ans that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible it the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? . . . Rather than accept the fantastically small probablity of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the orgin of life was a deliberate Intellectual act."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
overall sceintist who are atheists or agnostics are at the same level as it was in 1900, when it was stupid and highly illogical to be an atheist or an agnostic |
Was that from the article in the 1999 Scientific American? US edition? The first study in that was in 1914.
quote:
currently, when it is somewhat reasonable (there is at least a reasonable alternative although it is highly hypothetical currently) to not beleive in a creator, a similar number of scientists are atheist/agnostic |
Yes quite similar. However ....
quote:
in 1900 that field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics was biology where a little over 40% were agnostics/atheists |
However NOT 40% agnostic/atheist. Only 40% believed in god.
Not exactly the same thing.
quote:
currently (or at least in 2000), physics was the field with the largest percentage of atheists/agnostics, once more at a little over 40%
this is not even a majority |
Yeah the number is right again but you have backwards again. 40 percent believe in god. Not even a majority. I have the issue in my lap.
quote:
overall percentage of scientists who were atheist/agnostic has be fairly quite a bit lower than that of the field with the largest percentage
and of those that beleive in god, almost all beleive in a creator
for example, among those that have come up with the theories that do not require a creator for the start of the universe there are many who beleive in God the creator, they jstu beleive that he chose to have the universe come into being in that fashion
Jon Miller |
I am curious where you got those numbers from? What country? It sure isn't the US.
Now for scientists you were talking about the elite scientists. In the US the National Academy of Sciences would make a good sample of them. Overall they are 90% unbelievers. The biologists are 95% atheists/agnostics.
So then, I stick with what I said. Most American Scientists are unbelievers and the amongst the top scientists believers are rather rare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
When I look around my house everything it is made and designed by someone. It did not come about be chance. Even the earliest of computers had a human behind it, and every advancement that has come along that make the computers we use today.
I am not saying that humans will not be able to one day make AI a realty, but it will take a human to create it. It would not have come about on its own. But we are far, far, far away form making anything that resembles that. Yet our brain is just a result of blind series of accendents. I cannot get past this one point, car needs a maker, computers need a maker, a jet aircraft needs a maker. These things will never arise on there own. Life, which is the greatest mistory of all, does not need a maker? To me it seems very logical to assume that life also needs a maker. With out it would not exist.
Oh yes I did not make up any stats. Also there many scientist who do believe that life had a intelligent maker behind it, and they are not creationist etheir.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Just wanted to post this quote form British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. He has done a lot of work of theories dealing with life coming to earth form space. This was a lecture he gave at the California Institute Of Technology. |
Sir Freddy died last year I am sorry to say.
Did you know that Hoyle believed that life came to Earth from other planets?
He created the term Big Bang to ridicule the theory.
He was however a good astronomer and he did very important work on the evolution of matter in stars. I think he deservered a Nobel for his work on that.
Very few people agree with Hoyles thoughts on the beginning of life on Earth. You wouln't like it either. I have some of his science fiction books from the 1950's. One has an inteligent intersteller cloud. The Black Cloud by Fred Hoyle.
Link on Hoyle.
http://members.tripod.com/~gwillick/hoyle.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Was that from the article in the 1999 Scientific American? US edition? The first study in that was in 1914.
Yes quite similar. However ....
However NOT 40% agnostic/atheist. Only 40% believed in god.
Not exactly the same thing.
Yeah the number is right again but you have backwards again. 40 percent believe in god. Not even a majority. I have the issue in my lap.
I am curious where you got those numbers from? What country? It sure isn't the US.
Now for scientists you were talking about the elite scientists. In the US the National Academy of Sciences would make a good sample of them. Overall they are 90% unbelievers. The biologists are 95% atheists/agnostics.
So then, I stick with what I said. Most American Scientists are unbelievers and the amongst the top scientists believers are rather rare. |
I will try to find were it was from
and yah, the atheists/agnostics made similiar percents and were not the majority (the majority was religious)
and the best scentists I have not seen to be atheists/agnostics
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
When I look around my house everything it is made and designed by someone. It did not come about be chance. |
Neither did you occur by mere chance. You evolved.
snip. I will get to that last.
quote:
Oh yes I did not make up any stats. Also there many scientist who do believe that life had a intelligent maker behind it, and they are not creationist etheir. |
There are very few. They are ALL creationists. SOME are not fundamentalists. Anyone that believes in inteligent design is a creationist of some sort. Nearly everything you have posted came straight from Fundamentalist christians and not from other types of creationists.
I know perfectly well you didn't make up the numbers. I knew where they came from initially. Fundamentlists. Profesional obfuscators who carefully fail to say where THEY got the numbers they use. I was only curious about the specific site you were raiding. I most likely have it in my favorites allready.
quote:
Yet our brain is just a result of blind series of accendents. I cannot get past this one point, car needs a maker, computers need a maker, a jet aircraft needs a maker. These things will never arise on there own. Life, which is the greatest mistory of all, does not need a maker? |
Again with the blind accidents. Selection is NOT blind. That which does work is selected out. That which helps is retained and then reinforced by later successful changes the are retained. None of it arose on its own. It all came from adaptation to the environment.
Cars and computers are BUILT not grown for purpose that fits a human need. We did not evolve to be what we are. We evolved to survive. It is not a accident because we are what survived. Failures are extinct. That we are inteligent is an accident only in that there was no purpose to our gaining inteligence EXCEPT that it enhanced our ability to survive. Brains are expensive thats why most animals didn't go that way. Now that we have brains there is no room on earth for another inteligent animal unless it is underwater.
I recommend that you try reading something about how evolution works instead just reading attempts to refute it as you seem to have been doing. I strongly recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. I also reccomend The Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagans book is a bit old now but it is still an excellent book. Dawkins book has been updated at least once since I read it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
I will try to find were it was from
and yah, the atheists/agnostics made similiar percents and were not the majority (the majority was religious)
and the best scentists I have not seen to be atheists/agnostics
Jon Miller |
Well in that one the agnostic/atheists were majority. The best scientists I have seen are aetheists or agnostics. They just don't talk about it much.
Here is a link to the summary on the SA site. Unfortunatly its only a teaser with no information.
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0999issue...icksummary.html
OK I found a site with some of the stuff in the article including the results in a table something that was missing in the SA:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I would just like to ask those of you who believe that life came about on its own and evolved, cant you conceed that the idea that someone, or at the very least something created life is a possible why for life to come about, that it does have at least some merit?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Also just one thing I wanted to say. The Universe had a begining, I dont think anyone would argue that point. But something must have existed before the Universe began which has no beigining, the matter that makes up the Universe had to have come form somewere. Something had to have existed before the universe was born. This something that existed before the Universe could be God or not. I would like to think that there is enough eviedence arround us in the Universe to come to a statisfing conculsion. Weather or not the Universe and life in it was created or just happened on its own.
One thing I think we should all do is try and look at the scienticfic evidence and fact. Putting aside our own preconved ideas and try to form a conculsion based on facts.
Right now I am taking a English class at my collage, it is one of my general edication requirements. It is a thinking and writting critically class. In the text book that we are using it has some good questions to ask your self to do self-analysis of our own world views. Now by posting this I dont want to imply that anyone in here is closed minded I dont want to offend anyone, I just thought that just considering these questions would be good for both sides to look at.
"Do you automatically dismiss positions oppesed to your own view?
Do you take your own beliefs for granted without recongnizing the need for support?
Do you deny that your beliefs could change?
Do you accept public information without question?
Do you recongnize that some assumptions based on your world view need to be critically evaluated?"
- Writing Logically, Thinking Critically, thrid edition, pg 8
Shelia Cooper and Rosemary Patton,
published by Longman, New York
the copyright is 2001
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Per usual, a debate on evolution has evolved into a debate on the origins of the universe...
Jack--you posit that there must have been something before the universe. Nope. The Big Bang was the beginning of space... and time. No time before the BB. Nothing before it, because there was no "before" it. Capiche?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I would just like to ask those of you who believe that life came about on its own and evolved, cant you conceed that the idea that someone, or at the very least something created life is a possible why for life to come about, that it does have at least some merit? |
Possible yes. Its also possible there is a giant invisible orbiting aardvark that controlls life on Earth. Neither is testable. Neither explains things by existing any better than if they didn't exist. You still wouldn't know if it existed and you wouldn't know why. You can convince yourself that you do know god or the aardvark exists but some people think they know that the Bavarian Illuminati are real too.
If you need to believe in magic invisible beings to get through the day then yes that belief has merit for you. Some people need to think life has some higher purpose. They have to avoid thinking about what gods higher purpose might be but there it is anyway. I know there are people that can't imagine acting in a moral way without thinking they have their own personal invisible aardvark on their shoulder watching and judgeing. I don't. It might be easier but I would have to shut down large sections of my mind to go that route.
If the giant invisible aardvark seem ludicrous to you what do you think an all powerful all knowing god seems to me when I know the world is not designed by anything remotely perfect. When I know the source is ridiculously wrong on many things. Those are not mere belief either because I can prove them by looking at the real world.
After all you may say its too complex for an accident. I say it looks darned random to me. If the world was perfect cities wouldn't be destroyed by earthquakes and volcanos. If humans were perfectly designed we wouldn't kill each other. If we are perfectly designed for some hidden purpose I don't think the designer has a purpose that is in my interests.
Trying to cover it all up by saying we can't understand god is just hiding from the reality that the alledged god could have allowed us to understand if its all powerfull. That is just the God Works In Mysterious ways ploy to stop people from thinking.
So yes its possible. I don't see any merit in an belief based on faith alone. You might find it for you. You could try depending on yourself and the real visible people around you instead. You might find you can do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guynemer
Jack--you posit that there must have been something before the universe. Nope. The Big Bang was the beginning of space... and time. No time before the BB. Nothing before it, because there was no "before" it. Capiche? |
THe matter that made up the universe had to have came form somewere. If there was nothing before the big bang, then how the hell did it happen?
Many scientist who uphold the Big Bang theory do postulate that something existed before the beginning of the Universe, something that has no beining. Allthought they dont all agree on what that was that existed then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Possible yes. Its also possible there is a giant invisible orbiting aardvark that controlls life on Earth. Neither is testable. Neither explains things by existing any better than if they didn't exist. You still wouldn't know if it existed and you wouldn't know why. You can convince yourself that you do know god or the aardvark exists but some people think they know that the Bavarian Illuminati are real too.
If you need to believe in magic invisible beings to get through the day then yes that belief has merit for you. Some people need to think life has some higher purpose. They have to avoid thinking about what gods higher purpose might be but there it is anyway. I know there are people that can't imagine acting in a moral way without thinking they have their own personal invisible aardvark on their shoulder watching and judgeing. I don't. It might be easier but I would have to shut down large sections of my mind to go that route.
If the giant invisible aardvark seem ludicrous to you what do you think an all powerful all knowing god seems to me when I know the world is not designed by anything remotely perfect. When I know the source is ridiculously wrong on many things. Those are not mere belief either because I can prove them by looking at the real world.
After all you may say its too complex for an accident. I say it looks darned random to me. If the world was perfect cities wouldn't be destroyed by earthquakes and volcanos. If humans were perfectly designed we wouldn't kill each other. If we are perfectly designed for some hidden purpose I don't think the designer has a purpose that is in my interests.
Trying to cover it all up by saying we can't understand god is just hiding from the reality that the alledged god could have allowed us to understand if its all powerfull. That is just the God Works In Mysterious ways ploy to stop people from thinking.
So yes its possible. I don't see any merit in an belief based on faith alone. You might find it for you. You could try depending on yourself and the real visible people around you instead. You might find you can do it. |
I am pretty darn sure that we can prove weather or not God exist, by indirect means. There are main things that we have proven to exist in the universe by indirtect means, one thing that comes to my mind is black wholes, we cannot see them directly but we have porven their existence.
You bring out a good point about the world around us and they mainy things people do to each other. I know for many this is one of the biggest reasons why they dont believe in God. I do not think that God is missterous and that we cant understand Him. The Bible tells us that he wants people to get to know him, to get close to him as you would a friend. I'll post more to what you said here latter, since I dont have the time right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Also just one thing I wanted to say. The Universe had a begining, I dont think anyone would argue that point. But something must have existed before the Universe began which has no beigining, the matter that makes up the Universe had to have come form somewere. |
heh I have an answer, well a sorta answer. Its possible and it doesn't depend on faith. Its only possible though. There is no way to prove it at present and possibly not ever. However at least part of it is true. Maybe all of it but it can't be tested. More at bottom of post.
quote:
Something had to have existed before the universe was born. |
No. If something had to exist before the universe than you have merely extended the question. Something must also have existed before the something you are thinking of.
quote:
This something that existed before the Universe could be God or not. I would like to think that there is enough eviedence arround us in the Universe to come to a statisfing conculsion. Weather or not the Universe and life in it was created or just happened on its own. |
What you would like to think and what is real are often two different things. I would like an after life. I see no way to believe in one that doesn't look exactly like wishfull thinking.
Wish in one hand and do something else in the other and see which happens first - Roger Zelazny in The Lord Of Light a science fiction novel so don't go thinking its religion.
quote:
One thing I think we should all do is try and look at the scienticfic evidence and fact. Putting aside our own preconved ideas and try to form a conculsion based on facts. |
I am glad you think the same way as I. Makes me feel more comfortable in the world.
quote:
Right now I am taking a English class at my collage, it is one of my general edication requirements. It is a thinking and writting critically class. In the text book that we are using it has some good questions to ask your self to do self-analysis of our own world views. Now by posting this I dont want to imply that anyone in here is closed minded I dont want to offend anyone, I just thought that just considering these questions would be good for both sides to look at. |
Fair enough.
quote:
"Do you automatically dismiss positions oppesed to your own view? |
No. I just want some evidence. Everything I know is tentative and subject to change. No matter how stubborn I stick to it when confronted by others the ideas can be changed by real evidence or reason.
quote:
Do you take your own beliefs for granted without recongnizing the need for support? |
See above.
quote:
Do you deny that your beliefs could change? |
See above. I have changed in the past so why not the future.
quote:
Do you accept public information without question? |
Thats not an American book is it? Sure doesn't sound like a something an American would consider much. Never trust public information without good reason. Not blindly anyway.
quote:
Do you recongnize that some assumptions based on your world view need to be critically evaluated?" |
I could swear I have done that on this thread.
OK the book is American. Still those really aren't questions. They are indoctrination. Not always a bad thing though. As long as you are carefull to look at it critically and that is realy what those questions are for.
----------
Now for that answer.
There is one thing I KNOW existed before the universe. It may not have had any use. I don't see how it could but still I am pretty sure it existed. Something immaterial. Something not subject to heat or energy. Something not even subject to time although it deals with it.
Mathamatics.
Physics as we know it ENDS at the Big Bang. Dr. Hawking has tried to get around this. His attempt was a way to hide the border in time with an imaginary time using imaginary numbers. That is when you run out of real numbers you still have imaginary numbers available. So far he has not managed to make the math work.
Still math is available if anything can use it. It doesn't need anything to exist. It has no purpose. It doesn't require us for existance. Its possible that life is inherent in math. If not explicitly then as a possibility. It is concievable that the universe is inevitable simply because it is possible.
Yes thats speculation. But math is real (and imaginary) and it doesn't need anything. It is the one thing that can exist before time. Anything else is likely to cause time.
I was taught that God always was always will be always remains the same. Its that last bit that doesn't work for any god that any human has ever invented. If the god always remains the same WE CANNOT EXIST. For we change and we would be part of any all powerfull all knowing god. That follows from the all knowing part.
Bet you weren't expecting anything like that Guynemer?
Its not a religion and but it does deal with before the universe. Just not very well. I stink at math.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I am pretty darn sure that we can prove weather or not God exist, by indirect means. There are main things that we have proven to exist in the universe by indirtect means, one thing that comes to my mind is black wholes, we cannot see them directly but we have porven their existence. |
I have seen similar claims. I am still waiting to see something substantial.
quote:
You bring out a good point about the world around us and they mainy things people do to each other. I know for many this is one of the biggest reasons why they dont believe in God. I do not think that God is missterous and that we cant understand Him. |
Not as long you are thinking of the Biblical god. That god can be tested against reality. It fails the tests. The efforts on this thread to rewrite the Bible shows that you yourself don't really believe it.
quote:
The Bible tells us that he wants people to get to know him, to get close to him as you would a friend. I'll post more to what you said here latter, since I dont have the time right now. |
It also has a flood that never happened. The creation story is just plain wrong. The Tower of Babel is absurd. There are contradictions in a book that should have none. I see no reason to believe anything in it that can't be checked by outside sources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:17
|
|
Is this thread still happening? 
The last time i posted i was harrassed about letting the creationists continue their delusional ways unimpeded. The impressive persistence of Ethelred is proof about my claim that it is the proverbial "bashing your own head against a brick wall". 
In any case, Ethelred's attempts to shake jack_www off his theological shackles should be rewarded, so i will enter the fray once more 
However, rather than try and logically denounce each statement, i prefer the more blunt approach. Jack_www, i suggest that you have a look at history - particularly religious history and it's attitude to science. You will see that ALL scientific advances that even remotely contradict the gospel of the bible were ruthlessly denounced at every opportunity. When the threat of eternal damnation didn't work, torture and murder were used to purge the person, hence the world, of the science, at least during the spanish inquisition.
Only when the evidence becomes insurmountable do fundamentalist christians retreat to the next line of defence, which is of course just another falsehood not yet disproven. This is a strategy used by creationists to muddy the waters, by insisting that a scientific theory needs to include everything else in order for it to have merit. Ethelred is right is keeping the topic on evolution, and only here can creationists can debate the subject. Jack_www used this approach, although i assume it was unintentional.
All of the things we laugh at our ancestors for what they believed that were in fact grossly untrue were held staunchly by religions. The beliefs in flat earths, earth being the centre of the universe, god making everything just as we see it now, and countless others were held as unshakable beliefs by various religions at some stage in the past. From where i stand, it looks ridiculous that they argue something until they are blue in the face; then, when they are proven to be incorrect, they simply argue for some other stupid fact until they are once again disproven, and on it goes
I said earlier in this thread that if god exists in this universe, he must be subject to the laws of physics of our universe. Moreover, he must be observable, at least indirectly. For god to be above our laws of physics, he cannot interact with anything in it. So, either he created the universe, OR, he influences it. However, he cannot do both. It is what i call the theopic principle 
Another reason why he can't do both is that nothing in our universe can remain unchanged. Entropy puts paid to everything
So, creationists - put that in your pipe and smoke it!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I think many have missunder stood some of the things I have posted on this thread. With the questions I posted form my english text book, I just put it there for people to use to answer them to themselves. I think that many may have gotten the impression that by posting such questions that I was implying that all of you were closed mined, this was not the case. I cant know that, I cant see into your mind. Sorry if this is the case. And is seems to me Ethelred is attacking it, I may be wrong on this, if so please explain what you are trying to say. IF you are attacking it, why are you? .
Form reading your posts, it seems you are very hostile to people who believe that their is a Creator. Sorry if I have missunderstood what you are trying to say.
I dont know all there is to know about science, many things I dont know, but I am willing to learn as much as I can.
I am also willing to look at the evidence and form a conculsion based on that evidence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-04-2002 00:47
). For Einstein the one who created all the riddles for physicists. For the philosopher the source of all wisdom. For a football player the one who grants the spectacular goals. To continue ...
|