Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My apologies. I strive to a higher standard of spelling than this. I was on the phone while posting (albeit not a valid excuse). Please continue to bring further errors to my attention.Originally posted by Rambam99:
Falwell and Robertson are not Germaine to this issue.
What about germane? Or should that be Germane?
HROT's struggle with the English language continues unabated.
Originally posted by Wild Onion:
My apologies. I strive to a higher standard of spelling than this. I was on the phone while posting (albeit not a valid excuse). Please continue to bring further errors to my attention.Originally posted by Rambam99:
Falwell and Robertson are not Germaine to this issue.
What about germane? Or should that be Germane?
HROT's struggle with the English language continues unabated.
No, just NPR.Originally posted by igtbahawki:
Originally posted by Wild Onion:
My apologies. I strive to a higher standard of spelling than this. I was on the phone while posting (albeit not a valid excuse). Please continue to bring further errors to my attention.Originally posted by Rambam99:
Falwell and Robertson are not Germaine to this issue.
What about germane? Or should that be Germane?
HROT's struggle with the English language continues unabated.
Oh great. We have to tell you about your errors, spelling and otherwise, after every post?
Originally posted by Wild Onion:
No, just NPR.Originally posted by igtbahawki:
Originally posted by Wild Onion:
My apologies. I strive to a higher standard of spelling than this. I was on the phone while posting (albeit not a valid excuse). Please continue to bring further errors to my attention.Originally posted by Rambam99:
Falwell and Robertson are not Germaine to this issue.
What about germane? Or should that be Germane?
HROT's struggle with the English language continues unabated.
Oh great. We have to tell you about your errors, spelling and otherwise, after every post?
Originally posted by HawkeyeStan:
Will you be taking this up with your pastor on Sunday, NPR?
What makes you think that my asking you if you've taken this up with your pastor indicates that I think you haven't already?Originally posted by Rambam99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeStan:
Will you be taking this up with your pastor on Sunday, NPR?
What makes you think I haven't already?
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
Christianity never said the Sun revolved around the earth, Catholics said this.
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
Christianity never said the Sun revolved around the earth, Catholics said this.
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
Christianity never said the Sun revolved around the earth, Catholics said this.
Really? Where did the Catholics get the idea?
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
Christianity never said the Sun revolved around the earth, Catholics said this.
Really? Where did the Catholics get the idea?
Isn't there some story in the Bible about god stopping the sun dead in its tracks? Wouldn't that imply the sun was orbiting the Earth, if the sun was stopped and not the Earth.
Originally posted by NewsBreaker:
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
Christianity never said the Sun revolved around the earth, Catholics said this.
Really? Where did the Catholics get the idea?
Isn't there some story in the Bible about god stopping the sun dead in its tracks? Wouldn't that imply the sun was orbiting the Earth, if the sun was stopped and not the Earth.
/images/smilies/roll.gif
Oh, goodness. You're right! God could never pull off such a feat!Originally posted by jrotten666:
So even assuming that you interpret this as the Earth stopped spinning, this brings up its own issues:
"Think about it. The earth is spinning at something like 1600 mph. If all of a sudden the earth stopped spinning (1600-0 mph in under a second), the G-forces would be so immense that we'd just... die. Not to mention we'd all just fly into everything else at 1600 mph. No way to survive. Utter destruction. Everything... Gone."
Wonder how God pulled this one off?
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Oh, goodness. You're right! God could never pull off such a feat!Originally posted by jrotten666:
So even assuming that you interpret this as the Earth stopped spinning, this brings up its own issues:
"Think about it. The earth is spinning at something like 1600 mph. If all of a sudden the earth stopped spinning (1600-0 mph in under a second), the G-forces would be so immense that we'd just... die. Not to mention we'd all just fly into everything else at 1600 mph. No way to survive. Utter destruction. Everything... Gone."
Wonder how God pulled this one off?
Yawn.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
Originally posted by NewsBreaker:
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
Christianity never said the Sun revolved around the earth, Catholics said this.
Really? Where did the Catholics get the idea?
Isn't there some story in the Bible about god stopping the sun dead in its tracks? Wouldn't that imply the sun was orbiting the Earth, if the sun was stopped and not the Earth.
/images/smilies/roll.gif
Joshua 10
10:12 Then spoke Joshua to Yahweh in the day when Yahweh delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand you still on Gibeon; You, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.
10:13 The sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Isn't this written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of the sky, and didn't hurry to go down about a whole day.
So even assuming that you interpret this as the Earth stopped spinning, this brings up its own issues:
"Think about it. The earth is spinning at something like 1600 mph. If all of a sudden the earth stopped spinning (1600-0 mph in under a second), the G-forces would be so immense that we'd just... die. Not to mention we'd all just fly into everything else at 1600 mph. No way to survive. Utter destruction. Everything... Gone."
Wonder how God pulled this one off?
This post was edited on 3/1 12:41 PM by jrotten666
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/1 12:44 PM by jrotten666
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
That is a ridiculous statement. Logic would dictate that a creator who invented and implemented the very laws of physics could do whatever He wanted with them at any given moment. Is it that difficult?Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
If he did, we should just give up on physics and everything else. The universe would no longer be logical . . .
Another completely unnecessary inference. Just because God could change anything at any moment does not mean He will. In fact, I believe He has stated He won't anymore until the end. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to continue with true science so we know how to best operate in our environment and subdue it, as He commanded.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
The universe would no longer be logical and all the things science has accomplished should just be ignored, because reality can just be changed any given time by an invisible being, so studying reality is worthless. But I doubt you are ready to give up your computer, tv, and just about everything else science has provided you. All the knowledge that went into making these items is worthless.
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
That is a ridiculous statement. Logic would dictate that a creator who invented and implemented the very laws of physics could do whatever He wanted with them at any given moment. Is it that difficult?
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong. Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
Logic itself does not allow for a creator. If you say god created the universe, then the question must be asked, where did god come from? If you choose to say that god has always existed then why not save a step and say the universe always existed? There is no need for a creator. Introducing a god brings an infinite regress of what brought about what.
Another completely unnecessary inference. Just because God could change anything at any moment does not mean He will. In fact, I believe He has stated He won't anymore until the end. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to continue with true science so we know how to best operate in our environment and subdue it, as He commanded.
The mere fact that god can change something at any given moment makes the laws that we understand the universe with worthless.
Originally posted by FeederCow:
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong. Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
This is so utterly ridiculous. You believe in the Big Bang, right? Think about it.
Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Originally posted by FeederCow:
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong. Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
This is so utterly ridiculous. You believe in the Big Bang, right? Think about it.
Nothing banged in the "big bang" so that term is worthless. What did happen was an expansion and that expansion happened according to the laws of physics.
You can't just change something in the middle of the universe without having drastic effects on the laws of physics. God stopping the Earth or sun in its tracks would cause all of physics to break down. Singularities, the points at which you contend physics break down, requires further study to explain them, but Hawking and other physicist are making breakthroughs in areas not previously explained by physics. They require a combination of the theories of the very large and theories of the very small. We can adjust our laws of physics to fit new phenomena, but the act of god stopping the sun or Earth is not within the scope of physics. Such an event makes our current physics altogether worthless.
This post was edited on 3/1 4:21 PM by iowahawkeyes1986
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
That is a ridiculous statement. Logic would dictate that a creator who invented and implemented the very laws of physics could do whatever He wanted with them at any given moment. Is it that difficult?Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
If he did, we should just give up on physics and everything else. The universe would no longer be logical . . .
Another completely unnecessary inference. Just because God could change anything at any moment does not mean He will. In fact, I believe He has stated He won't anymore until the end. Therefore, the logical thing to do is to continue with true science so we know how to best operate in our environment and subdue it, as He commanded.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
The universe would no longer be logical and all the things science has accomplished should just be ignored, because reality can just be changed any given time by an invisible being, so studying reality is worthless. But I doubt you are ready to give up your computer, tv, and just about everything else science has provided you. All the knowledge that went into making these items is worthless.
I understand them just fine.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You do not understand science or the laws of physics then. If those laws are able to be broken then those laws are wrong.
Actually, nothing can be trusted in the big picture. God can do whatever He wants whenever He wants. But that's irrelevant as to whether it is true or not. It would make the universe perfectly logical if there was a Creator.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Meaning we can't trust anything we see or know about the universe because it can be changed be randomly at any given moment. The universe wouldn't be logical.
No, your logic is flawed. Logically, there must be a Creator. The physical universe cannot account for itself, nor have existed forever. Therefore, the only logical solution is the non-physical.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Logic itself does not allow for a creator. If you say god created the universe, then the question must be asked, where did god come from? If you choose to say that god has always existed then why not save a step and say the universe always existed? There is no need for a creator. Introducing a god brings an infinite regress of what brought about what.
Your statement is the height of arrogance. Obviously, they have served God's purposes and man's uses quite well. That was really dumb.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
The mere fact that god can change something at any given moment makes the laws that we understand the universe with worthless.
I believe the Bible indicates the age of the miraculous would quickly come to an end. The miraculous event is an attesting sign. The event can only be ascribed to the supernatural. But near the end of all things there could be supernatural events. I'm not going to post all the verses on the theology in this thread.Originally posted by jrotten666:
Where did God say he would no longer change the natural world until the end of times?
God can operate in such as there is no detection of any manipulation of the physical universe, thus it would not be called miraculous. It's called working providentially, or at such a level that his tweaking cannot be proven.Originally posted by jrotten666:
This is bordering on a Deist position. If God is no longer going to actively operate in the natural world, then what good does prayer do? God will not help you if you are ill, injured or in danger.
I will tell you what I was told. Keep telling yourself that. It may bring you comfort but it's completely wacked. It's pure ridiculousness. Christians have made gigantic contributions to science.Originally posted by jrotten666:
This is the big contradiction with religionists. On the one hand, to be relevant or even exist in the modern world, they need to at least cater to science to some extent. Yet deep down, they hold very unscientific beliefs and take a very unscientific approach to the world. Their pretensions towards science are out of necessity and they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way with virtually every major scientific advancement.
Says, you, and like with the other guy, it doesn't carry much weight with me.Originally posted by jrotten666:
"If Christians wish to enter the public arena then they can expect to become meat for the lions"[/B]
That says it all, right there.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Actually the physical universe can account for itself, not fully yet, but we are getting closer all the time.
You can live in the dark and think I didn't understand them. But I had several semesters of college physics and did very well. I understand the nature of the laws. You're just failing to grasp the power of a Creator (if He exists) over laws he completely designed and implemented. You're closed minded and won't let it open to other possibilities.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I understand them just fine.
Anway, says you, and frankly, that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
Obviously you don't. The laws of physics apply everywhere. If you can just nit pick situations where the laws no longer apply the law is worthless. Anyone who had a clue about what a scientific law or theory is would know this.
No, it can't. Something can't come from purely nothing. However, that's a nice faith you have. I see you have a strong faith in your modern priesthood.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Actually the physical universe can account for itself, not fully yet, but we are getting closer all the time. Conservation of mass and energy is not broken by the universe existing. Take a look inside the strange world of Quantum Mechanics, things happen without a cause at all.
There is zero flaw to my logic. Physical laws only apply to the physical universe. The concept of a Creator is theoretical solution to the existence of the universe. It would take an eternal non-physical being, not existing in linear time, and not bound in any way by physical laws, but instead being the author and master of them. Open your mind.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Second, even if you say the universe can't account for itself, neither can god. Where did this "creator" come from? How come the creator doesn't have a creator? How is it possible for a creator to always exist, but not the universe. Your logic is flawed, not mine.
I understand the scientific method just fine. I'm just not arrogant and therefore can understand its limitations. I don't worship it as you do. It is your God and you pay homage to it.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You don't understand the scientific method, let alone what scientific theories and laws are, so this sentence doesn't really surprise me.
Originally posted by Wild Onion:
That says it all, right there.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Actually the physical universe can account for itself, not fully yet, but we are getting closer all the time.
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
You can live in the dark and think I didn't understand them. But I had several semesters of college physics and did very well. I understand the nature of the laws. You're just failing to grasp the power of a Creator (if He exists) over laws he completely designed and implemented. You're closed minded and won't let it open to other possibilities.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
I understand them just fine.
Anway, says you, and frankly, that doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
Obviously you don't. The laws of physics apply everywhere. If you can just nit pick situations where the laws no longer apply the law is worthless. Anyone who had a clue about what a scientific law or theory is would know this.
No, it can't. Something can't come from purely nothing. However, that's a nice faith you have. I see you have a strong faith in your modern priesthood.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Actually the physical universe can account for itself, not fully yet, but we are getting closer all the time. Conservation of mass and energy is not broken by the universe existing. Take a look inside the strange world of Quantum Mechanics, things happen without a cause at all.
There is zero flaw to my logic. Physical laws only apply to the physical universe. The concept of a Creator is theoretical solution to the existence of the universe. It would take an eternal non-physical being, not existing in linear time, and not bound in any way by physical laws, but instead being the author and master of them. Open your mind.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Second, even if you say the universe can't account for itself, neither can god. Where did this "creator" come from? How come the creator doesn't have a creator? How is it possible for a creator to always exist, but not the universe. Your logic is flawed, not mine.
I understand the scientific method just fine. I'm just not arrogant and therefore can understand its limitations. I don't worship it as you do. It is your God and you pay homage to it.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You don't understand the scientific method, let alone what scientific theories and laws are, so this sentence doesn't really surprise me.
This post was edited on 3/1 8:20 PM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Says you. Period.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
The problem is, you are not using logic at all. You are explaining natural phenomena with super natural things. That is not logical at all. Maybe in your small small world it is, but not when it comes to science.
A very, very poor analogy. These types of stories fail miserably like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People try to attribute absurd physical characteristics and then corellate the story to a non-physical being who wouldn't occupy any space or even time in this physical universe.Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
""A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..."
- Carl Sagan