Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
"What's an f.christian and what relevance it has to God's creation of all that it is?"
HAH! Adrift I WAS! Seek the TRUTH! Demo-sodomite cast their lot with SATAN - long not will they live. REPENT - EVOLUTION = DEATH.
If you are unaware to the contributions f.christian has made to scientific inquiry over the years, you're struggling for a solid D in this class, mister.
Of course, the Darwinists view anyone who doesn't subscribe and conform to their version of things as uninformed narrow minded Christians.
Scary in fact. Given the shenanigans that many scientists are engaged in I wonder what their hubris will bring down on all of us.
According to my calculations (anyone, please feel free to correct these), it would take 8.8x10^27 cc of water to cover the Earth with 5 miles of water. The volume of the Earth is only 1.1x10^27 cc. Now where did all that water come from? Out of the bowels of the Earth?
Yeah, except it should read, "SCIENCE is built on a supposition...". The assumption that only natural causes are in play, for the restricted purpose of explaining and understanding natural processes, is common to ALL scientific theories. It is also EQUALLY common to all scientific theories. It is not one sinlge fraction of a degree more characteristic of evolution than of any other theory, law or principle.
Now, this may bother you; that science only considers natural cause. If so there's a solution for that, although a successful outcome is by no means guaranteed: Just develop a genuinely useful and successful theory that incorporates supernatural, non-natural, psychic, spiritualist (whatever) causes.
Science has never failed to accept a genuinely successful theory just because it violated what was then understood to be the nature of science. Instead the understanding of the nature of science was adjusted to accommodate the theory. This worked, for instance, for Newton's gravitation which appealed to an "occult" force that could act at a distance and transmit itself without physical impact between bodies.
What doesn't work, however, is whining. There are good reasons why scientists, even piously religious ones, think that science won't work with supernatural causes. (For instance, to be brief, if you can always invoke a miracle then any theory can always explain any result.) You have to DEMONSTRATE by example that supernatural science can work as science.
Muchos thanks. I'll read it when I have time, which most likely is after Christmas. It's a long read, you know.
What's an f.christian and what relevance it has to God's creation of all that it is?
"An" f.christian was a creationist poster who was banned some time ago. He posted from Hawaii and would, from time to time, mention his wife, who is Polynesian. (I don't know why he was banned; I was on a hiatus at the time). His posts were nuggets of incoherence presented in a haiku-like form, but lacking the terseness. AFIK he's still living in Hawaii. He wasn't malevolent, at least to me, and I looked forward to his posts, as weird as they were.
Effdot, as he was affectionately known, is undoubtedly one of God's more interesting creations.
That's about the best I can do. I can't seem to tease any meaning out of your second sentence.
Yeah, but how much was built in the 7th century? And while some technology was relatively advanced at points in the Middle Ages, an overwhelming amount of learning was lost.
"When evidence controverts an existing scientific theory the theory is refined in face of the new evidence and retested."
My Grandpa used to call this "making the shoe fit."
NOT TRUE!
Some of them are uniformed and narrow-minded Islamists. Others are uniformed and narrow-minded Hare Krishnas. A few are uniformed and air-headed "new agers". Still others are uninformored and ...
Impossible. Reread Ichneumon's post and you will see why.
If you point to me to the essay, I shall read it and report. What essay are you talking about?
I'm talking about the one I linked in the post you disagreed with -- which you obviously did without bothering to actually *read* the link in the first place.
Hint: Post #540.
Question: If you didn't bother reading the link, why did you feel qualified to insult it?
Lo! the poor Indian, whose untutor’d mindI think I prefer the alternative I posted. There is a lot less hate.
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk, or milky way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope has giv’n,
Behind the cloud-topt hill, an humbler heav’n;
Some safer world in depth of woods embrac’d,
Some happier island in the watry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fields torment, no Christians thirst for gold!
To Be, contents his natural desire,
He asks no Angle’s wing, no Seraph’s fire;
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.Alexander Pope, An Essay On Man.
"I was serious about you changing the subject because you had no answer to my statement that spontaneous generation has nothing to do with evolution, nor do any evolutionists believe in it."
Spontaneous generation it's exactly what evolutionists believe. It's part of their belief of the origin of life. They believe that life happened out of nothing. Nothing from nothing gives you nothing.
Actually, towards the end, if you parsed your way through all the punctuation, more than a few of his posts were quite nasty. Think he finally blew his wheels for good, but if you're longing to relive the past he's over on LP under the handle "byeltsin"
I am not sure technology was lost. I haven't seen Notre Dame, but have seen the cathedral in Cologne. They were just using old technology to build a new type of thing. That's why these things are so "clunky" on the outside. It had to be that way to make them open and beautiful on the inside. What wasn't happening was development of new tools, ideas and materials. Progress was very slow, if at all. It took the Enlightenment and climbing out from under Rome to push progress. Something we all don't want to happen again and something that could very well happen under a Fundamentalist Theocracy.
My Grandpa used to call this "making the shoe fit."
When the "shoe" is the knowledge, and the "foot" is the evidence, then yes, that's rather an apt analogy, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Shoes *should* be adjusted to fit the feet, and theories *should* adjusted to fit the reality.
If, on the other hand, you meant that in some kind of derogatory fashion, then read post #712 until it becomes clear.
"Spontaneous generation it's exactly what evolutionists believe. It's part of their belief of the origin of life. They believe that life happened out of nothing. Nothing from nothing gives you nothing."
Incorrect - the Theory of Evolution does not address the origins of life.
Almost every culture on Earth had their start by a river, lake, sea or ocean. All of these locations suffer from local floods.
For your hypothesis to hold any water at all, you need to show that all of these stories are referring to the same time period. You would also have to explain why there are areas of the earth that show no evidence of flooding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.