|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 11, 2018 2:50:40 GMT
... both shall fall into the ditch.
It is not my point here to pick on people who cannot see with their eyes. This expression refers to another sort of blindness that afflicts people whose eyes seem to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 11, 2018 3:39:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Sept 12, 2018 2:48:39 GMT
Prog has ProgVision!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Sept 12, 2018 14:54:12 GMT
What is your point? We all must rely on beliefvsystems and information systems we have decided to trust. How do you know yours is real and mine isn't?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 12, 2018 22:29:34 GMT
What is your point? We all must rely on beliefvsystems and information systems we have decided to trust. How do you know yours is real and mine isn't? I don't. I do however have a lot of training in proving things. I can find certainties approaching absolute, but that's the best anyone can do. For example no one can "prove" that gravity will be any different or the same tomorrow. We can however notice that there appear no agencies that might cause it to change. I have never claimed to have the "Holy Spirit." I have said that you probably need it to understand any Bible verses. So when I comment on the Bible it is usually just a review of others' comments, my beliefs however poorly founded. I make no guarantees. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 12, 2018 23:46:13 GMT
What is your point? We all must rely on beliefvsystems and information systems we have decided to trust. How do you know yours is real and mine isn't? I don't. I do however have a lot of training in proving things. I can find certainties approaching absolute, but that's the best anyone can do. For example no one can "prove" that gravity will be any different or the same tomorrow. We can however notice that there appear no agencies that might cause it to change. I have never claimed to have the "Holy Spirit." I have said that you probably need it to understand any Bible verses. So when I comment on the Bible it is usually just a review of others' comments, my beliefs however poorly founded. I make no guarantees. Those, like yourself, who rely on unproven unscientific fable and myth to explain life and recommend that position to others, are the blindest of the blind. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 13, 2018 3:25:22 GMT
mistaking your kids head for a watermelon
i remember the little rifles
they had
at disneyland
and you could shoot targets
all the while pretending
to be a man.
so
why is it so hard to understand
that
my son
mistook your kids head
for
a watermelon.
sjw 09/12/18 inspired at this very moment in time by one more chapter soon to be written into law.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 13, 2018 4:10:28 GMT
I don't. I do however have a lot of training in proving things. I can find certainties approaching absolute, but that's the best anyone can do. For example no one can "prove" that gravity will be any different or the same tomorrow. We can however notice that there appear no agencies that might cause it to change. I have never claimed to have the "Holy Spirit." I have said that you probably need it to understand any Bible verses. So when I comment on the Bible it is usually just a review of others' comments, my beliefs however poorly founded. I make no guarantees. Those, like yourself, who rely on unproven unscientific fable and myth to explain life and recommend that position to others, are the blindest of the blind. Since when have I depended on myths or fables to explain anything whatsoever? I've been perfectly logical and scientific about everything in the scope of science. I've been perfectly reasonable and civil about those things which are not. You on the contrary seem to think that your opinions are somehow something more than just your opinions, like children who believe their parents without understanding why. Perhaps you missed this while you were away > The most dangerous faith of all. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 13, 2018 20:55:30 GMT
Those, like yourself, who rely on unproven unscientific fable and myth to explain life and recommend that position to others, are the blindest of the blind. Since when have I depended on myths or fables to explain anything whatsoever? I've been perfectly logical and scientific about everything in the scope of science. I've been perfectly reasonable and civil about those things which are not. You on the contrary seem to think that your opinions are somehow something more than just your opinions, like children who believe their parents without understanding why. Perhaps you missed this while you were away > The most dangerous faith of all.If you believe in creationism by god you do this constantly enduringly and conclusively. I've been perfectly logical and scientific about everything in the scope of science. ...and therein lies the problem. You actually have no clue about science and the scope it covers. Is this my opinion? Yes. Is there evidence for this? Yes in your website and your blatherings on here. Perhaps you can confirm whether you believe in creationism by god, if I have this wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2018 22:49:48 GMT
Since when have I depended on myths or fables to explain anything whatsoever? I've been perfectly logical and scientific about everything in the scope of science. I've been perfectly reasonable and civil about those things which are not. You on the contrary seem to think that your opinions are somehow something more than just your opinions, like children who believe their parents without understanding why. Perhaps you missed this while you were away > The most dangerous faith of all.If you believe in creationism by god you do this constantly enduringly and conclusively. I've been perfectly logical and scientific about everything in the scope of science. ...and therein lies the problem. You actually have no clue about science and the scope it covers. Is this my opinion? Yes. Is there evidence for this? Yes in your website and your blatherings on here. Perhaps you can confirm whether you believe in creationism by god, if I have this wrong. It is a simple and plain scientific fact that the agency that assembled the first life on a previously molten Earth is not found in nature. That is not considered proof of the Bible, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Buddha or any other such rendering of various mysterious entities. I never said it was. I have proved the existence of a purpose to religion, which is altogether a different thing. I have not proved psychic phenomena myself, but I have explained how they might be proved to witnesses present. Again that is something else entirely from the first two. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 14, 2018 22:57:48 GMT
Since when have I depended on myths or fables to explain anything whatsoever?If you believe in creationism by god you do this constantly enduringly and conclusively. I've been perfectly logical and scientific about everything in the scope of science. ...and therein lies the problem. You actually have no clue about science and the scope it covers. Is this my opinion? Yes. Is there evidence for this? Yes in your website and your blatherings on here. Perhaps you can confirm whether you believe in creationism by god, if I have this wrong. It is a simple and plain scientific fact that the agency that assembled the first life on a previously molten Earth is not found in nature. That is not considered proof of the Bible, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Buddha or any other such rendering of various mysterious entities. I never said it was. I have proved the existence of a purpose to religion, which is altogether a different thing. I have not proved psychic phenomena myself, but I have explained how they might be proved to witnesses present. Again that is something else entirely from the first two. No, it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 14, 2018 23:27:24 GMT
It is a simple and plain scientific fact that the agency that assembled the first life on a previously molten Earth is not found in nature. That is not considered proof of the Bible, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Buddha or any other such rendering of various mysterious entities. I never said it was. I have proved the existence of a purpose to religion, which is altogether a different thing. I have not proved psychic phenomena myself, but I have explained how they might be proved to witnesses present. Again that is something else entirely from the first two. No, it isn't. No it isn't found in nature. Otherwise you could name it, show how it does what it does. You could say, "Look, it's defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! We told you it could with energy from outside the 'closed' system of Earth." You aren't doing that though. You can't do that. Even if we grant you all the sunlight you want, you still can't do that. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 15, 2018 0:26:46 GMT
It is a simple and plain scientific fact that the agency that assembled the first life on a previously molten Earth is not found in nature.No, it isn't. No it isn't found in nature. Otherwise you could name it, show how it does what it does. You could say, "Look, it's defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! We told you it could with energy from outside the 'closed' system of Earth." You aren't doing that though. You can't do that. Even if we grant you all the sunlight you want, you still can't do that. Yes, it is found in nature. That effectively rules out a creator. A large body of scientists have worked on this and have EVEN written books, scientific papers, and they have this new thing called moving pictures that have explained it. You should update yourself and a read look listen and understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2018 0:44:16 GMT
No it isn't found in nature. Otherwise you could name it, show how it does what it does. You could say, "Look, it's defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics! We told you it could with energy from outside the 'closed' system of Earth." You aren't doing that though. You can't do that. Even if we grant you all the sunlight you want, you still can't do that. Yes, it is found in nature. That effectively rules out a creator. A large body of scientists have worked on this and have EVEN written books, scientific papers, and they have this new thing called moving pictures that have explained it. You should update yourself and a read look listen and understand. A few of the very simplest steps in the assembly of life have been arranged to occur in laboratory settings, albeit somewhat artificially like using miniature lightning. There is however nothing surprising about those simple things happening. What you need are those very short, very lifeless, very unprotected from the environment RNA chains to build something ever. No, that is not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 15, 2018 1:02:18 GMT
Yes, it is found in nature. That effectively rules out a creator. A large body of scientists have worked on this and have EVEN written books, scientific papers, and they have this new thing called moving pictures that have explained it. You should update yourself and a read look listen and understand. A few of the very simplest steps in the assembly of life have been arranged to occur in laboratory settings, albeit somewhat artificially like using miniature lightning. There is however nothing surprising about those simple things happening. What you need are those very short, very lifeless, very unprotected from the environment RNA chains to build something ever. No, that is not happening. I commend the work to you of Professor Brian Cox ( amongst others ) so that you can update your knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 15, 2018 4:16:29 GMT
A few of the very simplest steps in the assembly of life have been arranged to occur in laboratory settings, albeit somewhat artificially like using miniature lightning. There is however nothing surprising about those simple things happening. What you need are those very short, very lifeless, very unprotected from the environment RNA chains to build something ever. No, that is not happening. I commend the work to you of Professor Brian Cox ( amongst others ) so that you can update your knowledge. I suspect this means you won't be making any case for the random (? or whatever) assembly of life in your own words. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 15, 2018 20:29:16 GMT
I commend the work to you of Professor Brian Cox ( amongst others ) so that you can update your knowledge. I suspect this means you won't be making any case for the random (? or whatever) assembly of life in your own words. Why would I launch into a treatise of complex scientific content when others say it so much better, especially in the case of the physicist that I recommended? Whilst I would caution the use of the term 'random' in this context I would also completely rule out the words 'purpose' and created by a god or 'supernatural' force. There is solid factual concrete evidence of the natural forces working over time to evolve life as we know it. It is exciting, and you really should investigate and update your 'scientific' knowledge on this matter. You came 'out of the ark' LOLOLOLOL |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 0:34:34 GMT
I suspect this means you won't be making any case for the random (? or whatever) assembly of life in your own words. , especially in the case of the physicist that I recommended? Whilst I would caution the use of the term 'random' in this context I would also completely rule out the words 'purpose' and created by a god or 'supernatural' force. There is solid factual concrete evidence of the natural forces working over time to evolve life as we know it. It is exciting, and you really should investigate and update your 'scientific' knowledge on this matter. You came 'out of the ark' LOLOLOLOL To show that you understand it yourself and are not just blindly accepting things. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 16, 2018 0:37:01 GMT
Why would I launch into a treatise of complex scientific content when others say it so much better, especially in the case of the physicist that I recommended? Whilst I would caution the use of the term 'random' in this context I would also completely rule out the words 'purpose' and created by a god or 'supernatural' force. There is solid factual concrete evidence of the natural forces working over time to evolve life as we know it. It is exciting, and you really should investigate and update your 'scientific' knowledge on this matter. You came 'out of the ark' LOLOLOLOL To show that you understand it yourself and are not just blindly accepting things. Do you understand it? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 16, 2018 0:39:56 GMT
To show that you understand it yourself and are not just blindly accepting things. Do you understand it? You'll have to be more specific. |
|
