31 Jul 15
Originally posted by KellyJayEffort? Of course. Nothing was ever achieved by following the path of least persistence.
Scripture says that we seek Him we will find Him, if you don't think it is worth the effort....?
Spiritual growth comes through the process of seeking, but seeking does not necessarily imply finding. Just as being thirsty does not necessarily imply that one finds water. (Christian) Scripture doesn't quench the parts of me that are thirsty. All its metaphors (about lakes of fire and forbidden fruits in a garden and such) rub me the wrong way.
31 Jul 15
Originally posted by moonbusNot sure why it would, it is the God of the Bible not the text of it that is going to make it all
Effort? Of course. Nothing was ever achieved by following the path of least persistence.
Spiritual growth comes through the process of seeking, but seeking does not necessarily imply finding. Just as being thirsty does not necessarily imply that one finds water. (Christian) Scripture doesn't quench the parts of me that are thirsty. All its metaphors (about lakes of fire and forbidden fruits in a garden and such) rub me the wrong way.
meaningful.
31 Jul 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you reckoning only inter-galactic space, or 'inner space', too? The inside of an atom is also mostly empty, given that electrons orbit at some distance from the nucleus.
I feel compelled to point out that the 99% figure is way off. Think more like 99.9999999999999999% depending on how you measure.
31 Jul 15
Originally posted by moonbusWell at least you now know that Einstein could not think of how a working universe could possibly be made differently. Perhaps you should leave the complicated stuff like that to God. 😏
I don't expect we'll solve the mystery today. It has been interesting to hear the different view points. Thank you to all who have contributed.
The Near Genius
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsyes, and stop all that silly evolution nonsense and get on with the real program, only allowing creationism to be taught in science classes with many many video's to back the curriculum.
Well at least you now know that Einstein could not think of how a working universe could possibly be made differently. Perhaps you should leave the complicated stuff like that to God. 😏
The Near Genius
Kill all work that leads to the conclusion the Earth is more than a few thousand years old and all that silly anti religious nonsense about the flood to be banned from the literature. Yessir, we only allow the TRUTH here.
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Scientific Failure of Darwinian Evolution - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson
yes, and stop all that silly evolution nonsense and get on with the real program, only allowing creationism to be taught in science classes with many many video's to back the curriculum.
Kill all work that leads to the conclusion the Earth is more than a few thousand years old and all that silly anti religious nonsense about the flood to be banned from the literature. Yessir, we only allow the TRUTH here.
01 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsTHIS Jeanson?
The Scientific Failure of Darwinian Evolution - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson
[youtube]1Kd67dpEZ7E[/youtube]
http://bostonatheists.blogspot.com/2009/08/report-on-nathaniel-jeansons.html
yessir, he is for real scientific truth no matter what the evidence says otherwise. Again, a prime example of going into a field with pre-conceived notions of what the outcome should be then twist and bend any science or scientist who gets in the way.
But then, you knew that all along. Guess what? So did we.
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhousePretty much they way anyone who disagrees/agrees with a position comes to any topic or
THIS Jeanson?
http://bostonatheists.blogspot.com/2009/08/report-on-nathaniel-jeansons.html
yessir, he is for real scientific truth no matter what the evidence says otherwise. Again, a prime example of going into a field with pre-conceived notions of what the outcome should be then twist and bend any science or scientist who gets in the way.
But then, you knew that all along. Guess what? So did we.
view, with pre-conceived notions of the outcome. It isn't like anyone can go to a topic or
view brain dead, then acquire what it is they think is true.
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy doesn't he have papers in peer reviewed journals then? A respected scientist lives or dies on his publications or lack thereof.
Pretty much they way anyone who disagrees/agrees with a position comes to any topic or
view, with pre-conceived notions of the outcome. It isn't like anyone can go to a topic or
view brain dead, then acquire what it is they think is true.
01 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere has to also be someone to do the peer review from the other side or else publishing papers in peer reviewed journals is a sham. He certainly does not appeared to have died yet.
Why doesn't he have papers in peer reviewed journals then? A respected scientist lives or dies on his publications or lack thereof.
Here is example of real peer review:
Adam & Eve Meet Genetics - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson
900 Million Differences Between Humans And Chimps
02 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseAre you assuming or suggesting only those with peer review papers can hold a valid
Why doesn't he have papers in peer reviewed journals then? A respected scientist lives or dies on his publications or lack thereof.
opinion on any topic? Lack of peer review papers does not automatically mean the point
they make is not valid any more than having some suggests all of their views are correct.
If you are going to reject out of hand all ideas and points of view just on that, you have
some very strong notions as well. If true it would mean you are doing the very thing you
were accusing them of.
I have to also throw in your opinion on the facts could be spot on too, but not having
papers published doesn't negate anything, in my opinion, we may disagree on that point.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe peer review science journals or magazines sonhouse is referring to are all controlled by atheist evilutionist that will not allow a creationist scientist in the door to publish or do any peer reviewing. It is all fixed and sonhouse should already know that since I have presented videos before on the subject, like "NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED."
Are you assuming or suggesting only those with peer review papers can hold a valid
opinion on any topic? Lack of peer review papers does not automatically mean the point
they make is not valid any more than having some suggests all of their views are correct.
If you are going to reject out of hand all ideas and points of view just on that, you have
so ...[text shortened]... having
papers published doesn't negate anything, in my opinion, we may disagree on that point.
Ben Stein's movie Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed