@fmf saidIt means mindlessness without thought, goals, asperations. Tying it to me or creationists has more to do with you than me. The word carries the same meaning if I used it or never did. You are the one redefining it not me.
I think the word "mindlessness", a word you have recited umpteen times already, means, coming from you, what I say it means in my post above.
@kellyjay saidYou are using it as a propaganda word to refer to things you don't understand and because your religion requires you to settle for supernatural causality as the antidote to your being perplexed, and to that end, you anthropomorphize the mechanics of the universe.
It means mindlessness without thought, goals, asperations. Tying it to me or creationists has more to do with you than me. The word carries the same meaning if I used it or never did. You are the one redefining it not me.
@avalanchethecat saidThe Apostle John was an eyewitness. The Apostle Paul was an eyewitness.
No. We have concrete evidence that at least one universe began, and that life began and evolved. These things definitely happened. There is no evidence outside these alleged eyewitness accounts of yours which are, of course, not actually eyewitness accounts, that a man turned water into wine, spontaneously healed the sick, carried out instant exorcisms and rose from t ...[text shortened]... d to Jesus in your scripture are akin to the beginning of the universe and to the 'miracle' of life.
Your refusal to acknowledge that - and to continue to repeat your mantra about no eyewitness accounts - just demonstrates your dishonesty.
Just like when you claimed to have read the Gospels “a bunch of times” after concluding they weren’t true and how you claimed to have looked into the Holy Bible “extensively.”
No one believed those whoppers and no one believes your whopper about no eyewitness accounts either 😉
@kellyjay saidIt is true though, what FMF says about the word 'mindlessness'. You could have used the phrase 'natural process'; creationist websites prefer the word 'mindlessness' simply because of the negative connotations it carries. This is how language is used.
It means mindlessness without thought, goals, asperations. Tying it to me or creationists has more to do with you than me. The word carries the same meaning if I used it or never did. You are the one redefining it not me.
2 edits
Wow. I have just been learning about the James Webb Telescope recently launched.
Scientists have now something 100 times more powerful than the Hubble Telescope.
My boys want to look father away and farther back in time to as close to the "Big Bang" as they can get. I am just as excited to see what we'll learn as anybody else - theist or not.
It doesn't interfere in any way with the sheer sweetness of Jesus my God and Savior.
Go James Webb Telescope ! Was there really a beginning ?
The Bible says so.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
@pb1022 saidYou declaring something to be untrue does not make it so, in the same way that you opening a new account with a different user-name doesn't make you a different person.
The Apostle John was an eyewitness. The Apostle Paul was an eyewitness.
Your refusal to acknowledge that - and to continue to repeat your mantra about no eyewitness accounts - just demonstrates your dishonesty.
Just like when you claimed to have read the Gospels “a bunch of times” after concluding they weren’t true and how you claimed to have looked into the Holy Bible “ ...[text shortened]... o one believed those whoppers and no one believes your whopper about no eyewitness accounts either 😉
@avalanchethecat saidIt’s up to you to prove the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul didn’t write the texts attributed to them - not up to me to prove they did.
You declaring something to be untrue does not make it so, in the same way that you opening a new account with a different user-name doesn't make you a different person.
And what makes me a “different person” is accepting and believing in Jesus Christ and in His Resurrection.
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
(2 Corinthians 5:17) 👍👍
@sonship saidI’m looking forward to the first images as well, but I read somewhere on here that they won’t be available for like six months
Wow. I have just been learning about the James Webb Telescope recently launched.
Scientists have now something 100 times more powerful than the Hubble Telescope.
My boys want to look father away and farther back in time to as close to the "Big Bang" as they can get. I am just as excited to see what we'll learn as anybody else - theist or not.
It doesn't interf ...[text shortened]... inning ?
The Bible says so.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
@pb1022 saidNope, burden of proof lies with the claimant. These things have been argued about and analysed for centuries, and there is no agreement and no proof either way; therefore you cannot claim they are eyewitness accounts, it is only heresay. You can choose to believe they are, but that's a statement of faith, not of fact.
It’s up to you to prove the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul didn’t write the texts attributed to them - not up to me to prove they did.
And what makes me a “different person” is accepting and believing in Jesus Christ and in His Resurrection.
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”
(2 Corinthians 5:17) 👍👍
Some quote from the bible doesn't wipe away your history. You are still the same person, regardless of of what you would like to believe.
@fmf saidSee my last
You are using it as a propaganda word to refer to things you don't understand and because your religion requires you to settle for supernatural causality as the antidote to your being perplexed, and to that end, you anthropomorphize the mechanics of the universe.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidI use the word because of its meaning, can I assume that is what you do too with the words you choose?
It is true though, what FMF says about the word 'mindlessness'. You could have used the phrase 'natural process'; creationist websites prefer the word 'mindlessness' simply because of the negative connotations it carries. This is how language is used.
@kellyjay saidOh for sure, it's not something I have an issue with, but it is, nevertheless, used on the websites where you have encountered it because of the negative connotations it carries.
I use the word because of its meaning, can I assume that is what you do too with the words you choose?
@avalanchethecat saidTry again: You’re the “claimant” stating something contrary to accepted authorship.
Nope, burden of proof lies with the claimant. These things have been argued about and analysed for centuries, and there is no agreement and no proof either way; therefore you cannot claim they are eyewitness accounts, it is only heresay. You can choose to believe they are, but that's a statement of faith, not of fact.
Some quote from the bible doesn't wipe away your history. You are still the same person, regardless of of what you would like to believe.
You’re just angry and getting personal because you got caught telling two big whoppers and destroyed your credibility.
Try to be honest, cap’n. It’s the only way to go 😉
@avalanchethecat saidI don’t spend time at creationist web sites, and even if I did the points I make, I make with the words I want to use. If you want your rebuttal to be you only say that because your a __ fill in the blank you are making this personal not a discussion of evidence.
It is true though, what FMF says about the word 'mindlessness'. You could have used the phrase 'natural process'; creationist websites prefer the word 'mindlessness' simply because of the negative connotations it carries. This is how language is used.