Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Malthus agreed with you in theory and developed the whole "we are going to overpopulate" idea.
actually, as a deceleration is in kinetics considered an acceleration, the winshield is changing vector faster than the passenger, so the winshield IS being thrown at the passenger.
Note also that 99% of the websites discussing combustion and nuclear energy will not say that either. If fact, probably 90% of them will say that combustion conserves mass unlike nuclear energy which converts mass to energy.
But once again, think of what we have. We have mathematical models of "fictitious" particles, atoms, molecules and how they are held together.
In combustion, we are changing the "binding energy" of the atoms in the molecules resulting in an energy release.
In fission, we are changing the "binding energy" of the nuclei of the atoms resluting in an energy release.
In fusion, we are changing the "binding energy" of the nuclei of the atoms resulting in an energy release.
That "binding energy" is what holds the particles together. We talk of Nuclear energy, we talk of chemical energy. Only because the chemists have beat it into our heads, do we find it hard to say that combustion converts mass to energy.
(Examples above all considered to be exothermic reactions)
"I"ve always had the personal belief that, if you step outside a literal interpretation, the parable of genesis sounds very similar to the big bang theory and a brief history of time."
That is my conclusion after 15 years of study of the Hebrew in Genesis 1.
I think that is what I said. That would be the statement in classical physics but people, unknowingly, use Einstiens non-inertial reference to say "the person was thrown into the windshield.
If it stood alone, I might agree with you. But combined with all the other things in Genesis that make modern scientific sense, I can't agree.
I agree that pagan beliefs are in the Bible in some places.
In fact, much of the Old Testament is about God trying to keep the Israelites from worshipping some other god/gods. The first two Commandments deal with this problem.
aside from the aforementioned 120 year lifespan, what else?
(remember: no dodgy interpretations - you can interpret things the way you want, but I can do so as well)
"you will have no other gods before me"
that has always been a matter of fascination: why not simply "there are no other gods"?
He allowed for the married man who must always worship his wife or forever be doomed to hell on earth.
hehhehheh
"Both the man-made world and the biological world are full of examples of "Irreducible Complexity." That is, systems or machines which were designed with a number of specific parts "wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Here is your definition. It was falsified before Behe published.
"Intelligent design proponents are now gaining a strong foothold in one of the last remaining towers of evolution theory, biology."
I really thought the above passage was a hoot. The ONLY tower of evolutionary theory is biology, and IDers don't know what that says, either.
Are you actually so ignorant of evolution to suggest that it proposes that the first life form had the "instructions" for creating all divergent species existing today in it?
Are you so ignorant of genetic coding as to suggest that simple life forms can develop into complex life forms without any sort of "instructions"? If it were possible, I'd like for you to explain how that happens.
so even if evolution required what you claim (and it does not), it still wouldn't matter how that first life form came into existence, so long as it did.
It only doesn't matter to people who can't grasp the fact that how life came into existance is the very heart of the debate. For the creationist, the knowledge that God created all life as we see it today settles the issue. But for evolutionists, they have to deal with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the lack of evidence for 'ape-men,'. The failure to answer the question regarding if we evolved from apes, then why are the apes still here? So by dispensing with the "where did life begin?" question, evolutionists are free to invent any sort evolutionary tree.
Are you really so ignorant of evolutionary theory to believe that we evolved from apes or are you just a troll injecting the rediculous into the argument for disruption's sake?
I do not need scientific evidence to know there is a God, all that is required is Faith. Humans are able to have this, animals and plants are not.
Even today it is difficult to confirm the age of people who claim to be more than 100 years old.
yes - it is hard to find someone who was around when they were born for a corroboration :)
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.