| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John P. Boatwright" |
| Date: |
13 Nov 2004 03:35:55 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Grantsburg, Wisconsin Insists on Creation |
Budikka wrote:
Of course it shouldn't, and as soon as they can prove that creation is
scientific, they can go right ahead and include it. Until then, it
needs to stay in the church, where it belongs.
God accurately described mountain range formation
before science knew what occurs:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/hills.htm
Science is behind.
Science's claim that NOTHING makes everything, that claim is bogus.
Good deal about Wisconsin telling them to start telling the truth.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Grantsburg, Wisconsin Insists on Creation |
13 Nov 2004 05:28:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:35:55 GMT in alt.atheism, John P. Boatwright
("John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Budikka wrote:
Of course it shouldn't, and as soon as they can prove that creation is
scientific, they can go right ahead and include it. Until then, it
needs to stay in the church, where it belongs.
God accurately described mountain range formation
before science knew what occurs:
Well, while I think that's - to say the least - unlikely, I'm curious
to know why you, and others similarly inclined can only recognise -
and "freely translate" - these pearls of wisdom ex-post facto.
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/hills.htm
Hummm.... It'd be nice, if just for once, you could use your own
rather special biblical translation and interpretational skills, and
tell us something wholly new - something that science has not yet
found, or guessed at - but which could be verified by experiment.
Dunno what, particularly. FTL - better yet - instantaneous - comms
would be nice though. But it doesn't have to be anything particularly
impressive - as that would be - but simply something that isn't
currently know to or guessed at by science: no doubt there are many
verifiable principles out there that would upset the current order,
rather as quantum physics did, and no doubt in due course at least
some of these will be discovered.
But what if you could find one of these unsuspected principles in the
Bible and make it available in such a way that it's testable
Science is behind.
No doubt. But, it is on the other hand, the most reliable way we know
of gaining new knowledge about the way the world and the universe
works.
Science's claim that NOTHING makes everything, that claim is bogus.
Why do you think that, if that's what "science" claims? As I
understand it there are currently many contending views, few of which
can be tested - some for want of a methodology, and some for want of
money. I mean - good grief - for some of them you'd need to build a
particle accelerator around the boundary of the solar system....
But then, to assume that a first cause is necessary is to assume that
causality was in some way preexistent to the universe, and if
causality, why God?
And if causality is a property of the universe and not pre-existent to
the Universe (whatever that means) does that mean nothing can happen
or anything can? Discuss. 2000 words by Friday. And "rain stop play"
is not a legitimate answer.
Good deal about Wisconsin telling them to start telling the truth.
I agree. Or would, if it were not for the political baggage that tends
to accompany such beliefs and teachings. Economically, of course, the
more the US degrades its intellectual resources, the better it is for
the rest of the world ... perhaps.
Muse: Suppose Creationism became the accepted mode of thought in the
US? Suppose it became, not exactly compulsory to teach that worldview,
but simply the way things were done. What then?
My first thought is it'd be a bit like abortion. If the US makes
abortion illegal, then those who can afford it and want one will go to
other countries to have it done. Similarly, if religious ideology
becomes endemic in the US educational system, those who can afford
education elsewhere, or private education providing that such
teachings didn't become mandatory in the US, for their children will
vote with their feet and credit cards.
So what you'll end up with is a foreign educated elite responsible for
and would be your scientific edge.
As a European, that sounds good to me. But your views may differ.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
"No doubt we shall see".
Or Not.
Personally speaking, my money is on "Not".
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franklin Tennyson" |
|
| Title: Re: Grantsburg, Wisconsin Insists on Creation |
13 Nov 2004 09:59:13 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:4gobp0lktik5je7vu1pen117s0njfdis8i@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:35:55 GMT in alt.atheism, John P. Boatwright
("John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Budikka wrote:
Of course it shouldn't, and as soon as they can prove that creation is
scientific, they can go right ahead and include it. Until then, it
needs to stay in the church, where it belongs.
God accurately described mountain range formation
before science knew what occurs:
Well, while I think that's - to say the least - unlikely, I'm curious
to know why you, and others similarly inclined can only recognise -
and "freely translate" - these pearls of wisdom ex-post facto.
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/hills.htm
Hummm.... It'd be nice, if just for once, you could use your own
rather special biblical translation and interpretational skills, and
tell us something wholly new - something that science has not yet
found, or guessed at - but which could be verified by experiment.
Dunno what, particularly. FTL - better yet - instantaneous - comms
would be nice though. But it doesn't have to be anything particularly
impressive - as that would be - but simply something that isn't
currently know to or guessed at by science: no doubt there are many
verifiable principles out there that would upset the current order,
rather as quantum physics did, and no doubt in due course at least
some of these will be discovered.
But what if you could find one of these unsuspected principles in the
Bible and make it available in such a way that it's testable
Science is behind.
No doubt. But, it is on the other hand, the most reliable way we know
of gaining new knowledge about the way the world and the universe
works.
Science's claim that NOTHING makes everything, that claim is bogus.
Why do you think that, if that's what "science" claims? As I
understand it there are currently many contending views, few of which
can be tested - some for want of a methodology, and some for want of
money. I mean - good grief - for some of them you'd need to build a
particle accelerator around the boundary of the solar system....
But then, to assume that a first cause is necessary is to assume that
causality was in some way preexistent to the universe, and if
causality, why God?
And if causality is a property of the universe and not pre-existent to
the Universe (whatever that means) does that mean nothing can happen
or anything can? Discuss. 2000 words by Friday. And "rain stop play"
is not a legitimate answer.
Franklin: Is causality, the principle of every action has an equal and
opposite reaction scientific? I may be wrong but I understand that even in
quantum physics after the initial erratic and unpredictble movement the
sucessive movements are bound by teh laws of "regular" physics. All you are
allowed in a chain of events is one unpredictable variable, the
parcipitating action. Then we have Einstein's theory of relativity. The
observation point determines the laws that appear to be in force in any
observable act. I throw that in to give you a way out of your delima.
In the big bang theory the scientist has to believe that two nothings, of
unequal density and momentum collides and generates all energy and matter,
since after this initial erratic and unpredictable act all laws are in
effect on all sucessive actions, such as the law of conservation of energy
and the law of enthropy. Thus molecules may form, but atoms cannot change
without some external force being applied, and in most cases some catalyst.
Now we encounter the law of probability as we theorize simple elements
transform themselves in to more complex elements, without any combining with
other elements so as to violate the law of enthropy and conservation of
energy. Remember, if even one exception exist to a law then the law itself
is disproven to be invalid. So, if in just one case the law of ent\hropy or
conservation, or probability is violated, even in quantum physics, then that
law is forever proved to be inacurate and invalid.
I ask you to explain using science how the big bang theory is scientifically
and mathematically provable in that it has somehow produced the cosmic all
and life? I wait your response in anticipation. Franklin
Good deal about Wisconsin telling them to start telling the truth.
I agree. Or would, if it were not for the political baggage that tends
to accompany such beliefs and teachings. Economically, of course, the
more the US degrades its intellectual resources, the better it is for
the rest of the world ... perhaps.
Muse: Suppose Creationism became the accepted mode of thought in the
US? Suppose it became, not exactly compulsory to teach that worldview,
but simply the way things were done. What then?
My first thought is it'd be a bit like abortion. If the US makes
abortion illegal, then those who can afford it and want one will go to
other countries to have it done. Similarly, if religious ideology
becomes endemic in the US educational system, those who can afford
education elsewhere, or private education providing that such
teachings didn't become mandatory in the US, for their children will
vote with their feet and credit cards.
So what you'll end up with is a foreign educated elite responsible for
and would be your scientific edge.
As a European, that sounds good to me. But your views may differ.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
"No doubt we shall see".
Or Not.
Personally speaking, my money is on "Not".
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Grantsburg, Wisconsin Insists on Creation |
13 Nov 2004 12:08:38 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:35:55 GMT in alt.atheism, John P. Boatwright
("John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Budikka wrote:
Of course it shouldn't, and as soon as they can prove that creation
is scientific, they can go right ahead and include it. Until then,
it needs to stay in the church, where it belongs.
God accurately described mountain range formation
before science knew what occurs:
Well, while I think that's - to say the least - unlikely, I'm curious
to know why you, and others similarly inclined can only recognise -
and "freely translate" - these pearls of wisdom ex-post facto.
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/hills.htm
Hummm.... It'd be nice, if just for once, you could use your own
rather special biblical translation and interpretational skills, and
tell us something wholly new - something that science has not yet
found, or guessed at - but which could be verified by experiment.
Boatwrong modifies his ideas of what the bible knew about science well after
science makes the announcement.
If tomorrow someone said they missed a decimal and the universe was 300 BYO
then the next day boatie would change his web site to show that the bible
said that rather than what he originally claimed it said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Misty" |
|
| Title: Re: Grantsburg, Wisconsin Insists on Creation |
13 Nov 2004 05:12:22 AM |
|
|
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka wrote:
Of course it shouldn't, and as soon as they can prove that creation is
scientific, they can go right ahead and include it. Until then, it
needs to stay in the church, where it belongs.
God accurately described mountain range formation
before science knew what occurs:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/hills.htm
Science is behind.
Science's claim that NOTHING makes everything, that claim is bogus.
Good deal about Wisconsin telling them to start telling the truth.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Grantsburg, Wisconsin Insists on Creation |
25 Nov 2004 05:40:53 AM |
|
|
"Misty" <""yardholler\"@Nospam,charter.net> wrote in message
news:10pbqs9kolmr417@corp.supernews.com...
John P. Boatwright wrote:
Budikka wrote:
Of course it shouldn't, and as soon as they can prove that creation is
scientific, they can go right ahead and include it. Until then, it
needs to stay in the church, where it belongs.
God accurately described mountain range formation
before science knew what occurs:
Why the hell would he do that? How do you say he said the mountains were
formed?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
