Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
* An all-knowing, omnipotent {relativly} being.
* A Creator?
* The Creator defines good and evil.
* The Creator is able to administer justice when He desires.
* He is also forgiving to the pennitant.
Ahem...Just observing
LOL!
I have no idea. :-)
"At least we have established that you are dishonest."
No, you haven't. I don't take people who rely on Bible Codes for validation for something that is supposed to be accepted on faith seriously. As I said, there is no further point in discussing this further. It's almost as bad as trying to discuss something with people who dismiss out of hand any medicines and insist that diseases are all caused by dietary *toxins*. As for the Bible codes, there is no way you are ever not going to see into the numbers exactly what you want to see. Goodnight. :)
Well, sometimes I feel like I am going over the line...I guess I just dont know where the line is, and I always fear getting banned...
From the posts I've read, you've nothing to fear. Not even close.
Not for Peter or the other disciples, including Thomas, who all saw the wounds.
In my humble opinion, you're nowhere near the line. Relax.
Thanks...I guess, I am gun shy tho...since I got kicked off of one forum, because I got into it with the 'JackChick' character, I am always a bit leary and hopefully watchful of what I say...
Thanks...I guess I just hyper worry, when I should not..I will relax...
I also made my point, that being that direct observation is not necessary if background knowledge contributes to and affirms conclusions based on indirect observations.
"Really, how would you know what that evidence would be? Some have suggested that "assuming" the conditions of the origin of the earth, the result would be extreme heat that would have destroyed the earth. That's great if their assumptions are right. Given they don't know the conditions and that any such assumptions are inherently unreasonable as a result, No one can really say heat would be problematic.. much less detectable."
That 'someone' was me I believe. At that time and apparently still you fail to understand what those assumptions are based on. There is a saying, 'No man is an island' which simply means that no person is totally independent of all others - this is also true of the physical laws. A change in one will be reflected in changes in others, many of which affect matter in specific ways. If in the past, adding energy to matter did not increase atomic motion, thereby creating heat, would application of energy still enable the creation of heavier atoms? Would photons still be released? Would light have existed?
You cannot simply postulate that high energy release did not create heat without messing up the energy creation itself. Matter and energy are inextricably linked, you cannot change one without affecting the other. We are quite correct in making the assumptions (your word) we do about the past because logically what you propose simply degrades to a 'Quantum Ouroboros'.
However, I don't make the rules around here, so if you get the big zot -- which is most unlikely! -- my humble opinion won't help you. Besides, I'm probably on thin ice myself, so what do I know?
The use of the 'genetic clock' is also becoming more accurate.
Nah, you will be around...anyway, I do know who makes the rules around here and what those rules are...
Thanks...that 'face to face' tactic can work sometimes...other times tho, I just go ahead with what I say , and hope for the best...
I think we could all say that we spend way too much time on FR...for me, between FR, Ebay, and GoogleEarth, my husband says he is surprised he ever sees me...
When you argue with a creationist, you aren't trying to convince the creationist. You're showing anyone who might be the slightest bit confused on the subject that what the creationist is saying is nonsense.
But, yeah, you're way over the line. Try following my example and being more diplomatic.
However, I don't make the rules around here, so if you get the big zot -- which is most unlikely! -- my humble opinion won't help you. Besides, I'm probably on thin ice myself, so what do I know?
No doubt... from what I've seen tolerated from the 'other' side, if things heat up too much, we may all end up on thin ice. It may be the trolls' game plan.
Just imagine that we are all in JimRob's living room. The "Front Parlor" living room.
Now picture what it means to be sent to the "Smoky Backroom." Right--one step from the back door where the garbage is stored.
I, for one, very much appreciate the chance to visit the "Front Parlor."
It sounds very much like you are trying to say that a 'Christian' foundation is necessary to give science stability. What I am saying is that the stability of science is based on the methodology and that the religious belief of those that developed the methodology is strictly incidental.
If you are not trying to link science to religion, why do you bother to bring up the putative religion of those that contributed to the development of science? This is no different than claiming science was started by people who consistently put their left shoe on before their right shoe, or by men who dressed to the left.
I need a new category in The List-O-Links for a remark like that. Perhaps "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRAINO."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.