Who's G-d? You don't mean old Gid Clampet from Meyersville, do you? I thought he had passed from liver disease last May.
You have no grasp of the scientific method so you're not really the person to ask when it comes to what may or may not be helpful for scientific understanding.what I’m saying is that the concept is their in “homeopathy” for a higher understanding of science.
You should thank doctors, not God. If God made our bodies he did a terrible job, we break so easily and so many structures in our body would never be made by deliberate rational design. The eye has a blind spot due to the optic nerve and our retinas can get detached. An octopus doesn't have that problem. In men the urinary tract goes through the middle of the prostate. We put food and air down the same passageway. And those are just a few poor 'design' features of the human body. The reason we now live 70+ years in the Western world is the work of Man. If god exists then we are figuring out how to make up for his mistakes.Of course I go to a doctor and the hospital if I‘m ill, I thank G-d for advances in science that help or preserve the human body
He doesn't help us worth medical knowledge. Did he invent the MRI? No. Did he explain germs to us? No. All those lepers in the bible and he or Jesus explain to people how to cure it? No, it took thousands of years for us to work out out to do it.There is nothing that stops me from believing that such advances in science are not only due to men/woman, but also FULLY due to G-d!
A claim you have no evidence or justification for. If you can't justify something please don't claim it, it only serves to make you look like you're knowingly deceptive and a liar. But then you are.are in thought (including you), or inspired by something, we are essentially in spirit transcending all limitations of our consciousness.
Utterly baseless and completely circular. You presume god made everything and not only that you then give him credit for anything good which anyone does, since ultimately we exist because he made it so. Even if god made everything he doesn't deserve any credit for things we have done. If I stop someone being mugged I acted. If I work hard I put in the effort. If I help someone to the detriment of myself I made that sacrifice.Without even realizing it you are part of fulfilling the divine purpose of G-d. whether you believe it or not, or wish to call it something other than G-d such as source, it is this energy that writes all the books, delivers all the speeches, paints all the pictures, discovers mathematical formulas and scientific theories… ect ect you name it.
I know its difficult for you to grasp but quoting the bible to me does absolutely nothing to support your argument. Every other holy book has similar comments to make about prophecy and how their deity or deities are awesome. You don't believe the bible is the word of any deity, I don't believe it to be an accurate recount of history, I don't believe it to be a good moral guide and quotes from it are no more impressive (not that they are impressive in the slightest) than any other pseudo navel gazing book trying to pass itself off as important.2 Peter 1:20-21 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of G-d spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Acts 27:14-15 - But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon. And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive.
I didn't say Man had. I said we discovered the explanations and underlying mechanisms of a great many things, sometimes in contradiction to the claims of the bible.Man has never in the whole history of our Earth discovered something new that did not already exist.
You seem to have no understanding of what science is. When I say things like "Science has provided us with models of gravity" or "Scientists provided us with germ theory and medicine" I am not saying "Scientists created gravity" or "Scientists created germs", I'm saying that people, through hard work and time, have gained an understanding of the universe all by themselves, not from god. Our understanding of how gravity behaves is solely due to the work people have done. Our understanding of the affect germs have on us is due entirely to research by people. Hell, the fact germs exist was something the bible forgot to mention despite it being so damn important to the lives of humans.We cannot even create a new color in the rainbow. Everything that is created in “science” is already contingent to our Earth and Universe. Therefore the thinking on your part that everything that is created in science is solely due to mans doing IS WRONG!
Is a strawman all you can do? Our understanding of life has come about through our work. Where chemicals and life came from is entirely a separate issue and it certainly wasn't how Genesis says, that much is known.A scientist said to G-d, "Look I created life". G-d said to the scientist. "How did you do that?" "Well boasted the scientist, I first got some chemicals". "First, said G-d, you must create the chemicals".
So your answer is 'No', you cannot provide an example. Instead you've done what is known as 'a shifting of the burden of proof'. You state there's a god and I (and many others) find you have not provided sufficient evidence. And now when you're asked to provide some you basically say "I cannot fathom an explanation for [X] therefore god exists". Its an argument from ignorance. Whether or not I have an explanation for the origin of humans is irrelevant, as any inability on my part to provide an answer doesn't mean your answer is more validated.Ok here’s one for you… explain to me what life is? What is it that makes us alive? What is consciousness?
Entropy explains it all. My conciousness is an electrochemical pattern in my brain which is maintainable in what is really an unstable state by a constant influx of low entropy energy. To prevent bacteria destroying my cells I must maintain them, as you would paint the walls of a house to keep the brickwork in good condition. If my body isn't kept at a particular temperature then certain chemical reactions don't occur or occur in the wrong way and parts of the cells in my body begin to break down. The decay to a more energetically favourable configuration occurs within minutes, even seconds, of the energy and chemical flow stopping. Once there's no energy for enzymes or proteins to maintain my cells everything begins the break. Bacteria start being able to destroy my cells and I begin to rot.Not only the sum of its parts, but “Information” (DNA) is a vital clue to the mystery of life itself. We cannot produce a living thing by merely putting together all its parts. An example of this is a dead animal that has been driven over by a car and smashed instantly. In one moment it was once alive, and in the next moment now it’s dead. This tells us that life is not the sum total of its physical parts. [Nonsensically nobody really knows what the difference is between a living animal and a dead animal other than once it was consciously moving and alive and now its unconscious, motionless, lifeless and dead. But the question remains, “WHAT” did it loose? It obviously lost its life (its spirit), but where did it go? This is what nobody seems to know - the mystery of life has eluded us. It’s a mysterious organizing, coordinating and orchestrating principle, and only G-d alone holds the answer to solving the mystery of life.
Provide evidence which is demonstrable. This a claim you must justify. You're engaging in an argument from ignorance again, you don't know how life works or how it could have naturally developed so you jump to "And god did it". I don't know how to build a car engine but I don't assume god did it.The theory of evolution reduces life down to a mere physical chemical thing, and its not!
Provide demonstrable, repeatable evidence for the soul.The Bible tells us that G-d breathed His breath into Adam to make him alive (a living spirit and soul). Now stop and consider just what the living breath of life is? Genesis 2:7 - The Lord G-d formed the man Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Another claim you need to demonstrate evidence for. We can turn amino acids into proteins in a testtube, outside of any living thing. All you need is the right combination of amino acids combined in the right way with the right energy input or output. Its a well understood process which doesn't have any "And then something magic happens and its a protein!". Protein sequencing, protein folding and DNA dynamics are huge areas of research, we know how DNA replicates on a molecular level.Additionally energy by “itself” is incapable of making amino acids form the more complex molecules of proteins.
You have done from a baseless claim to... no, you've gone from a falsified claim and an argument from ignorance to a completely unjustified conclusion. Amino acids and proteins are not unknown areas of biology, these are things you can look up easily. Well, I say you but we both know you haven't been in the same state as a science book for years.Therefore inescapably, without known exception there has to be a coded pre-planned program from whence these codes came from.
The Poincare recurrence time, chaos theory, thermodynamics and even physical chemistry disagree. Again, you're making flat assertions not only without doing any research on the matter but you're doing it on a website populated by people who do science for a living.Disorder will NEVER randomly become order.
All assertion without evidence.Something must direct the impending physical energy before it can “KNOW” how to organize the components. This NEED (by itself) is of little whim to the mindless interplaying atomic particles of the elements that they were to form, and then latter get together and program the code of the replication process themselves.
Thanks for actually demonstrating that either you're deliberately deceptive or just thick. You just made it clear you are aware crystals form with structure yet your brain couldn't connect that to a disordered system becoming ordered. But then I guess its out of practice when it comes to linking logically.In crystals, each compound by its chemical and elemental property is directed into a geometric pattern of its pre-existing structure.
Flawed reasoning. This is a subject covered on a TV show called 'The Atheist Experience' recently. Here is one and here is another (between 5m and 15m or so). You're arguing from analogy.It seems that a code always requires an intelligent order as well a an intelligent planner. So as one can see the much needed ingredient to all of this is “INFORMATION“. It deserves independence of its own. In that, INFORMATION is something comparatively different from matter. It can never be deduced to just a material aspect. For instance, I would like you to think of your computer and the words you are now reading on it. It consists of a monitor screen and light, and the information within it. The monitor and light are material substances composed of matter. The computer is made of plastic and metal. However, the “INFORMATION” (words) on the screen is NONMATERIAL, and it came from my conscious mind who is the writing source behind the material aspect of it. I put it into the material form of the computer screen for you see and read. I translated the information in my mind into letters, using a keyboard and computer. As a product and outcome, this “INFORMATION” is passed onto you. In conclusion, you can understand that mind, matter and design constructed this “information” from a source beyond just the material aspects of it.
Information isn't some conserved specific thing like energy. Information is observer dependent. I get no information from a book written in Chinese while someone reading a book on mathematics might get a lot less information from it than me. A piece of information to one person is noise to another. You don't need to put in information to get DNA, it is just an arrangement of atoms which has developed over time under specific rules related to chemistry and biology. Even ignoring the fact its not a random process random processes can produce things which can be viewed as information, but it depends on the person doing the observation. Get enough monkeys typing and given enough time you'll get all the books ever written but you'll also get a lot of 'noise'. And books in other languages (which use the same alphabet obviously). We give things the label 'information' and its done in a very arbitrary way. In fact its a huge question in information theory as to how to even measure information content (something I happen to be working on myself) because its such a situation dependent thing. 20, 12, 4, 32, 23, 14. Is that sequence useful information? Or random? It might be next weeks lottery numbers or the code to a safe but to you right now its meaningless, it lacks context.Similarly, the source of information in nature cannot be matter itself either, but another influence at work. A superior source beyond matter and existing PRIOR to matter. The administrator of this information is what we can interpret as G-d who brought everything into existence, formed it, and so eloquently organized it all.
If she isn't, that's an awesome idea!
This is true Crunchy Cat that my book is listed as fiction, but there is a specific reason for that.
On the back cover of my book I explain that one must decide for themself if it is truely non fiction.
If your going to claim that my book is truely "fiction", then you at least have to find me something "not true" about what I write about.
Can you disclaim any of the info that I had supplied with this demo of my book?
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf
If you can, I'd certainly like to hear/dispute it.
Wrong. Anita's book is fiction because it's a compilation of utter nonsense, compounded by ignorance, wishful thinking and a deliberate twisting of known facts.Anita's book is fiction because it currently tries to describe a currently unknown belief and to put it into context in today's light.
Knowledge is more than just regurgitating facts, its about knowing when and where to use them, to combine them and develop them. Computers can recall facts but they aren't 'knowledgeable'. A calculator can do basic arithmetic faster than any human but they can't do mathematics. And common sense or intuition is not always the best guide, particularly in the world of science when you have to sometimes turn over all your previous views in the light of evidence.Or does not make any sense in laymen's terms. Common sense makes sense and common sense stems from wisdom not knowledge. Knowledge is only as powerful as you can throw facts out randomly. Common sense is something you have to learn on your own and does not come from any book.
Neither placebos nor homoeopathy use a drug, so how can it use "less"?homeopathy is just a persons take on the placebo effect... If he told you exactly what he was doing it wouldn't work. The difference in homeopathy is that it uses less of the drug to "cure" the ailment.
Right. How scientific of you, knowing what you're going to prove before you even start.I will one day prove from a case study that OCD is related to more than just germ-o-phobia.
For someone who claimed earlier to be familiar with maths it appears it's only a passing familiarity. How familiar, exactly? You once saw a book?AND that insanity reaches up. In my mind you are all insane, with your dribble on suppressing any free thoughts or plausible ideas without knowing what data has been statistically skewed in any experiment. It all comes down to statistics uses both words and numbers to give an explanation.
Word salad. Incoherent gibberish.you can and will not break my mental spirit. Although many people stretch the truth no pure translation is truly viable of any action from the past. The past is data that has been skewed for many different purposes and the simplest ideas such as symbols can only tell the truth. and no one language in history holds power, but as a summation of all "ideas" from past present and future synchronism will appear in time. In all eyes as we all look toward the future. such as Anita's book would suggest.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
what I’m saying is that the concept is their in “homeopathy” for a higher understanding of science. ”
You have no grasp of the scientific method so you're not really the person to ask when it comes to what may or may not be helpful for scientific understanding.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Of course I go to a doctor and the hospital if I‘m ill, I thank G-d for advances in science that help or preserve the human body ”
You should thank doctors, not God. If God made our bodies he did a terrible job, we break so easily and so many structures in our body would never be made by deliberate rational design. The eye has a blind spot due to the optic nerve and our retinas can get detached. An octopus doesn't have that problem. In men the urinary tract goes through the middle of the prostate. We put food and air down the same passageway. And those are just a few poor 'design' features of the human body. The reason we now live 70+ years in the Western world is the work of Man. If god exists then we are figuring out how to make up for his mistakes.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
There is nothing that stops me from believing that such advances in science are not only due to men/woman, but also FULLY due to G-d! ”
He doesn't help us worth medical knowledge. Did he invent the MRI? No.
Did he explain germs to us? No. All those lepers in the bible and he or Jesus explain to people how to cure it? No, it took thousands of years for us to work out out to do it.
If God's supposed to be so helpful why can't people extract working practical knowledge from the Bible before science figures it out? Why are all these 'revelations of knowledge' in the Bible always discovered after science did the work?
Why should god get credit when he doesn't lift a finger?
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Without even realizing it you are part of fulfilling the divine purpose of G-d. whether you believe it or not, or wish to call it something other than G-d such as source, it is this energy that writes all the books, delivers all the speeches, paints all the pictures, discovers mathematical formulas and scientific theories… ect ect you name it. ”
Utterly baseless and completely circular. You presume god made everything and not only that you then give him credit for anything good which anyone does, since ultimately we exist because he made it so. Even if god made everything he doesn't deserve any credit for things we have done. If I stop someone being mugged I acted. If I work hard I put in the effort. If I help someone to the detriment of myself I made that sacrifice.
Besides, you only mention the good things. If god made everything and all things have him as their source then he made all the psychopaths, he caused all the murders and wars and rapes in history. He killed billions of people violently because he made all the weapons, all the arms, all the hatred, the bigotry, the anger in everyone.
You cannot judge him only on the good things, that's inconsistent. If he gets the praise for every good thing then he gets the responsibility for every bad thing. Every bad deed, every bad thought, every single negative thing ever is his fault. Yeah, what a swell guy. Just as Christopher Hitchins says, even if I believed in god he obviously doesn't deserve worship.
Our grasp of the universe we got ourselves. Even if the universe were created by a deity he's been of zero help to us. Besides, he definitely didn't do it in the way set out in Genesis, another thing we've realised thanks to our work.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
A scientist said to G-d, "Look I created life". G-d said to the scientist. "How did you do that?" "Well boasted the scientist, I first got some chemicals". "First, said G-d, you must create the chemicals". ”
Is a strawman all you can do? Our understanding of life has come about through our work. Where chemicals and life came from is entirely a separate issue and it certainly wasn't how Genesis says, that much is known.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Not only the sum of its parts, but “Information” (DNA) is a vital clue to the mystery of life itself. We cannot produce a living thing by merely putting together all its parts. An example of this is a dead animal that has been driven over by a car and smashed instantly. In one moment it was once alive, and in the next moment now it’s dead. This tells us that life is not the sum total of its physical parts. [Nonsensically nobody really knows what the difference is between a living animal and a dead animal other than once it was consciously moving and alive and now its unconscious, motionless, lifeless and dead. But the question remains, “WHAT” did it loose? It obviously lost its life (its spirit), but where did it go? This is what nobody seems to know - the mystery of life has eluded us. It’s a mysterious organizing, coordinating and orchestrating principle, and only G-d alone holds the answer to solving the mystery of life. ”
Entropy explains it all. My conciousness is an electrochemical pattern in my brain which is maintainable in what is really an unstable state by a constant influx of low entropy energy. To prevent bacteria destroying my cells I must maintain them, as you would paint the walls of a house to keep the brickwork in good condition. If my body isn't kept at a particular temperature then certain chemical reactions don't occur or occur in the wrong way and parts of the cells in my body begin to break down. The decay to a more energetically favourable configuration occurs within minutes, even seconds, of the energy and chemical flow stopping. Once there's no energy for enzymes or proteins to maintain my cells everything begins the break. Bacteria start being able to destroy my cells and I begin to rot.
If you can stop these decay processes, both on a cellular and molecular level then you can, in principle, 'restart' cells or even bodies. That's why organs are transported in ice, it slows the cellular decay enough to get from one person to another. Its why some people with more money than sense have had their bodies frozen immediately after death, it maximises the chance they'll be revivable if some day we can cure whatever it was which killed them.
Another claim you need to demonstrate evidence for. We can turn amino acids into proteins in a testtube, outside of any living thing. All you need is the right combination of amino acids combined in the right way with the right energy input or output. Its a well understood process which doesn't have any "And then something magic happens and its a protein!". Protein sequencing, protein folding and DNA dynamics are huge areas of research, we know how DNA replicates on a molecular level.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Disorder will NEVER randomly become order. ”
The Poincare recurrence time, chaos theory, thermodynamics and even physical chemistry disagree. Again, you're making flat assertions not only without doing any research on the matter but you're doing it on a website populated by people who do science for a living.
The most basic example is water. As liquid or gas its molecules are in a random configuration but if you cool it below freezing they all line up in a predictable pattern on a molecular level (as anything involving crystals does). Even more than that, they can form patterns on a macroscopic level as seen in snowflakes. Order from disorder in entirely naturalistic and well understood processes.
“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Similarly, the source of information in nature cannot be matter itself either, but another influence at work. A superior source beyond matter and existing PRIOR to matter. The administrator of this information is what we can interpret as G-d who brought everything into existence, formed it, and so eloquently organized it all. ”
Information isn't some conserved specific thing like energy. Information is observer dependent. I get no information from a book written in Chinese while someone reading a book on mathematics might get a lot less information from it than me. A piece of information to one person is noise to another. You don't need to put in information to get DNA, it is just an arrangement of atoms which has developed over time under specific rules related to chemistry and biology. Even ignoring the fact its not a random process random processes can produce things which can be viewed as information, but it depends on the person doing the observation. Get enough monkeys typing and given enough time you'll get all the books ever written but you'll also get a lot of 'noise'. And books in other languages (which use the same alphabet obviously). We give things the label 'information' and its done in a very arbitrary way. In fact its a huge question in information theory as to how to even measure information content (something I happen to be working on myself) because its such a situation dependent thing. 20, 12, 4, 32, 23, 14. Is that sequence useful information? Or random? It might be next weeks lottery numbers or the code to a safe but to you right now its meaningless, it lacks context.
All of your arguments are just rehashings of default theistic claims. Nothing you've tried is new to me and certainly not convincing. Watch a few episodes of that TV show I just linked to and you'll see just how flimsy your arguments are and how easily they are blown apart. And the fact you're daft enough to try to make up claims about science to people who do science for a living only serves to make your position seem worse. If your arguments are valid you shouldn't need to lie and make false assertions.
homeopathy is just a persons take on the placebo effect..."I hope to god we are all familiar with this one" If he told you exactly what he was doing it wouldn't work. The difference in homeopathy is that it uses less of the drug to "cure" the ailment. I believe the process works with less significant drugs like for mental illness for example perhaps is an inexact science.
I will one day prove from a case study that OCD is related to more than just germ-o-phobia.
There is a blind spot, it's not bunk. It would be good if you learned what the "ole canard" is before you claim to debunk it. The point isn't that the design is flawed enough not to work right. The eye does work fine in just about all the conditions in which we may want to use it. We don't notice the spot because our brain fills in the gap.Anita Meyer said:As for the eye having a blind spot due to the optic nerve, this is a whole lot of bunk! Firstly, there is no bad design in the wiring of the human eye. This is purely an attack on the designer!This is the same ole canard of the evolutionist. It would be nice if anti-creationists actually learned something about the eye before making such claims. These people are usually disqualified in both physical optics and eye anatomy.
It was around 4 billion years ago. The oldest cold case in history. Where did God come from?Anita said:I watch in delight as Evolutionists still struggle to explain where the first cell came from?
Name 1 thing you've done which has been published in a journal. 1 thing which has passed review by the scientific community.Wrong, as a matter of fact I am the person to ask, as most of my posts reveal. On the other you have no room to talk since you’ve confessed all you have is a degree in physics and are limited in biology.
I think you should look up how the eye works. Its demonstrated to children in school. Opticians know about it. Look it up. You're in denial.Yes, I thank BOTH doctors and G-d! However you are wrong again on the assumption that G-d did a terrible job at designing our body. As for the eye having a blind spot due to the optic nerve, this is a whole lot of bunk! Firstly, there is no bad design in the wiring of the human eye. This is purely an attack on the designer!
Most animals have superior eyes to us, in terms of night vision, distance, movement, spectrum. Our eye, in fact all our senses, is done better in the animal kingdom.This is the same ole canard of the evolutionist. It would be nice if anti-creationists actually learned something about the eye before making such claims. These people are usually disqualified in both physical optics and eye anatomy. What you should be asking these people is to show you how the eye doesn’t function properly as a result. I would also challenge them to design a better eye with the versatility of the vertebrate eye. This would include color perception, resolution, coping with the range of light intensity, night vision as well as day vision, the human eye is also brilliantly designed to cope with far wider ranges.
They all serve some purpose but that has nothing to do with whether their 'design' is optimal. The prostate could still do its job if the urinary tract didn't go through the middle of it. I didn't say things were useless, I said they were designed poorly if you assume a designer.The same goes for the urinary tract in men, and why food and air go down the same passageway. I could list a number of things such as the appendix and tonsils and such. However if you study these things in greater depth you will learn that there is no faulty design in any of these things - there are good reasons for all of them!
Provide evidence. You're using circular logic. He created everything therefore he gets the credit for everything thus anything any one does is evidence for him. If he doesn't exist in the first place then he inspires no one. You must prove existence before you can even get close to assuming he inspires people.YES He does help us with medical knowledge, and YES he did inspire the person/people that invented the MRI!
You seem to have a blind spot in your thinking. You give him credit for all the good things but you don't mention his bad things. He made all the birds and trees and inspired the poets and musicians but if thats the case he also created all the disease, hatred, bigotry, ignorance, murderers, rapists, psychopaths everything which is bad. You can't call him 'the creator of all things' and then only consider the good things, you have to consider all the bad things too.Whether you wish to call it G-d, source, spirit or Holy Spirit, this energy writes all the books, delivers all the speeches, paints all the pictures. And as I’ve also previously explained… when any of us are in thought, or inspired by something, we are essentially in spirit transcending all limitations of our consciousness. So as to know that something greater (of a higher purpose) is at work here fulfilling the divine purpose.
Anyone will know if you don't wash your hands you get a dodgy stomach more often than people who do. Even in pre-Christian times they knew that if you hung around with sick people you get sick. They didn't know why. And even after the bible they thought it was evil spirits. The entire middle ages is filled with the "This person is ill, they are possessed" stories here in Europe. That came from the Bible. Medical understanding didn't start developing until people ignored the decrees of the church and look at dead bodies. da Vinci made extensive anatomical drawings of corpses but in secret.Incidentally “germs” were explained to us in the Bible on numerous occasions in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It seems that the Bible also knew about “bacteria and parasites”. Because in (Leviticus 13:45-46) it tells us to wash after handling a dead body. And in (Numbers 19:11-19) it tells us to bury excrement away from a camp. Additionally in (Deuteronomy 23:12-13) it contains instructions to dispose of human excrement away from the people, in order to keep the camp holy. Here we find that Moses’ sister Miriam was infected with a disease or virus of some kind, and G-d told Moses to remove her from the presence of the people for seven days (suggesting that the illness had a seven day incubation period). Numbers 12:14 - The Lord replied to Moses, Confine her outside the camp for seven days, after that she can be brought back. This is amazing considering that people didn't understand the biological nature of germs until relatively recently (the last few hundred years). And they couldn’t have know this without a microscope. Yet in the Old Testament it specifies cleanliness laws, food laws as well as viral knowledge, so they must have had somewhat of an understanding of germs, yet they couldn’t see them, or understand how they were transmitted. So the question remains, how did they know this unless otherwise privy from G-d?
You seem to be trying to convince yourself of something....G-d only needs to tell us something once, and that should be enough. In fact there is a Bible phrase that specifically tells us this. Luke 16:31 - He said to him, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (this is referring to Moses and the Prophets thus the entire Bible). Everything that G-d had/has to say to us has already been recorded in the Bible. He doesn’t need to reiterate Himself. Thus, if we don’t read His word and come to know the truth we’ll continue to decrease down the path of the atheist scientist and the evolutionist (as you are previously doing), because its all hidden from them (and you forever) unless you open the Bible which is the pathway to G-d. The secret to all answers is programmed by G-d for you and me THROUGH HIS WORD! Essentially, without the WORD OF G-D we are lost! Yes, the profession of the scientist is important to a certain degree, but when we are dealing with “eternal issues”, these scientific studies may actually be a spiritual deterrent if we look outside the bounds of what the Bible tells us of the origin of all things in existence. One must learn by heart and spirit that the believer has divine knowledge over any unbeliever no matter how educated, accomplished, skillful, talented or brilliant they may be!
So he doesn't give us free will? If I have free will then the result of my actions are my responsibility. If nothing I do is due to me then I have no free will.We cannot rightfully say/claim that anything is of our own doing, since everything that we have is "endowed" to us by our Creator!
You should look up what else he said. He was a theist, not a christian. He's responsible for the separation of Church and state.Thomas Jefferson once said, all the freedoms we have in this country are endowed to us by our Creator: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government - Thomas Jefferson.
But God inspires everyone to do everything and he created everything. Everything has him as the source including sin.This is were the Atheists “who do not know scripture” loose base. The book of Genesis clearly tells us that on account of “sin” we are living in a cursed world.
Wow, people die. The Bible must be true!I Corinthians 15:22 - All “in Adam” die.
Genetic variation and evolution has been seen in nature and in the lab. Your claim is demonstrably false.Nothing is mutating or evolving... NOTHING, only dying! In fact everything is in “reverse” and the Bible clearly reveals this to us.
Genesis is demonstrably false, it contradicts reality. At best you can argue that God used cosmology and evolution to get the universe to where it is. It wasn't done in 6 days 6000 years ago.Oh really? The last time I checked the observable laws of nature correspond precisely to what the Bible tells us about creation and dictates that living things cannot come from nonliving things.
I commented on this before. Creationists suffer from the flawed logic that if the person they disagree with cannot provide an answer then their answer, no matter what it is, is more valid. A scientist says "We don't know yet" and a creationist will declare "Then the Bible is right!". Our understanding of cellular biology and chemistry has developed enormously in recent decades, particularly since DNA was discovered. We don't have the answer yet but we have some answers. Creationists have provided no answers which they can present evidence for (quoting the Bible isn't evidence). You think that 'God did it' becomes more valid if someone else doesn't have an answer. False logic. Abiogenesis is an active area of research. 200 years ago we didn't know the answers to how life developed to its present state, now we do. 200 years ago we didn't know how the universe developed over time, now we do. The Christian positions were wrong then as they are wrong now, the fact we didn't know back then doesn't mean you were less wrong.I watch in delight as Evolutionists still struggle to explain where the first cell came from? What is even more entertaining is that they cant even replicate it.
I know you're used to pretending to be well read but don't project onto other people. I actually do mathematics and physics professionally. I don't have to swindle ignorant laypersons into buying books, I get paid by other professionals because they see I am a capable scientist.Stop trying to make yourself sound intelligent by pointing out Poincare and such!
Circular logic. You assume a designer to prove a designer.Logically the design for water freezing into a crystal is lined up in a predictable ordered pattern because these INSTRUCTIONS WERE OBVIOUSLY ALLREADY (BEFOREHAND) PROGRAMED INTO THE WATER MOLECULE (AND BEFORE THE WATER MOLECULE - THE ATOM) BY AN INTELEGENT DESIGNER - NAMELY G-D!
Wrong! The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system, where no energy is being put in.Firstly, the mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law of thermodynamics (or as you said ealier - entropy). It argues that disordered atoms and molecules impulsively came together over time and formed all by themselves under natural condition to assemble complex molecules such as proteins and DNA, whereby millions of different living species with more organized configuration gradually emerged and are (at present) continually in the process of evolving higher levels of order. But this is conflicting with the law of thermodynamics and entropy which clearly reveals to us that systems (evolution) should DECAY through time thus giving less, not more order.
Never heard of the anthropic principle?Consider protons for example. Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Whether by chance or unexpected luck, protons just happen to be larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller we would not exist simply because atoms could not form the molecules we require.
So how did protons end up being larger than electrons? Why not larger or smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size?
Or how is it that protons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electron? If protons did not balance electrons and vice versa we would not exist. They are not comparable in size and yet they are perfectly balanced. Did nature just stumble upon such a favorable relationship or did an intelligent Agent with a purposeful design ordain it that way?
The fact you make your living deceiving people disgusts me.Sadly, the only reason you have a head, is to keep rain out of your neck.
Who's G-d? You don't mean old Gid Clampet from Meyersville, do you? I thought he had passed from liver disease last May.
Perhaps if you actually read the post you wouldn't need to ask:Wow....
I would like "AlphaNumeric" to explain to us why we should find some Thomas Jefferson quotes significan. Was he particularly intelligent? I would like to know why.
Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Thomas Jefferson once said, all the freedoms we have in this country are endowed to us by our Creator
AlphaNumeric said:You should look up what else he said. He was a theist, not a christian. He's responsible for the separation of Church and state.
A series of quotes by Jefferson and other founding fathers of the US are discussed here. He wasn't a Christian.