|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 23, 2003 16:13:13 GMT -5
babysis and kee, thanks to both of you.
larrygn - "3. My statements; however do fit the Bible, science, and history better than any others I can find, so I find them to be most correct for me."
Your statements fit science? How, when the scientific evidence presented contradicts them at every turn.
stevec - Regarding Einstein's "dice" comment, let's put that in its proper context. The comment was made solely in reference to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and when that principle was later shown to be correct, Einstein stated that he regretted ever making the comment.
--TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Oct 23, 2003 16:59:26 GMT -5
How about creation came in accordance with the law? pkmtyolm and energy are not different things in correlation. They are different forms of the same thing in equation. pkmtyolm, an expression of the energy potential in God's will? The law already existing in God's mind but not finding application until creation? I don't know. How about, creation is an expression of God, i.e. a manifestation of what God IS as an entity of ever expanding, mutlidimensional consciousness. God then is the energy gestalt that is behind, within, and indeed forms all universes and individuals. pkmtyolm, matter.... are simply manifestations of consciousness.
The creations create because that's what God is. In other words. God experiences himself in all action that is made manifest through infinate probablities and realities.
|
|
|
Post by larrygn on Oct 23, 2003 20:41:40 GMT -5
Traffic Demon: Just how does my idea counter scientific fact? I am saying God created man, you want anything close to the species. I say no, only God created man, the others, I don't know where they came from or why, but they are found close to, but never in the area of the original Garden of Eden, to that I ask you
WHY???
Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 23, 2003 21:08:49 GMT -5
larrygn - "I say no, only God created man, the others, I don't know where they came from or why, but they are found close to, but never in the area of the original Garden of Eden, to that I ask you
WHY"
Because our species did not originate in the Middle East, but in Africa. Our oldest hominid ancestors evolved in Africa, and later migrated into the Middle East and beyond. Your insistence that our species was specially created, independent of those other hominid species wholly contradicts the scientific evidence. We did not originate in the Middle East, it was only relatively recently that we migrated into the area.
--TDv2.0
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Oct 23, 2003 22:50:44 GMT -5
Traffic Demon: Just how does my idea counter scientific fact? I am saying God created man, you want anything close to the species. I say no, only God created man, the others, I don't know where they came from or why, but they are found close to, but never in the area of the original Garden of Eden, to that I ask you WHY??? Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry Because you make the assumption that whatever isn';t found in the m iddle east that's a human fossil as being a work of Satan. So then Neanderthal,which Cro-Magnon man and early Homo Sapien had interaction,and on rare occasion even cultural diffussion with,was an emotionless demon race made by Satan JUST because they lived in Europe and not the middle east. And I always though the first evidence of real civilazation is on Malta. I thought that some of the stone buildings there have been dated to 10,000 years old. I am not sure,so I'm saying I think. And Malta is in the Western Mediterranean Traff,do you know anything about what I'm talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Oct 24, 2003 1:55:54 GMT -5
How about, creation is an expression of God, i.e. a manifestation of what God IS as an entity of ever expanding, mutlidimensional consciousness. God then is the energy gestalt that is behind, within, and indeed forms all universes and individuals. pkmtyolm, matter.... are simply manifestations of consciousness.
The creations create because that's what God is. In other words. God experiences himself in all action that is made manifest through infinate probablities and realities. Are you making fun, Kee? Sounds good to me. Although pantheistic, but then I guess that is where I'm going: God = creation C 2More a heretic every day but it seems to make more sense. Does the Bible really demand a discontinuity between creator and creation. Orthodoxy has always held creation from nothing and being distinct from God. But discoveries about physics and the nature of matter and subatomic behaviors seem to open traditional understadnings to new development. Seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by larrygn on Oct 25, 2003 9:54:42 GMT -5
Traffic Demon: you may say that my statements are not in concert with science, I don't think so. I am just saying that I need to have man in the Garden of Eden, and only accept positions that explain whey they can not find evidence of his being there. As for occupation of the middle east, it is not new, Jerricho is the oldest walled city found to date -- get it Jerricho, it has a 2 edged meaning!!
michealdark: even I will give you information that Swiss sites shows modern man on Lake Geneva dated in the 20,000BC period, definitely not first in Malta. My question is where are they found in the Garden of Eden, and if not WHY?
Kee: your post 718 is excellent. I see to have a bad first impression of you, thinking you were only interested in satirization and not useful comments, I completely agree with post 718.
Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 25, 2003 12:50:25 GMT -5
larrygn - "you may say that my statements are not in concert with science, I don't think so."
Whether either of us thinks so is irrelevant; the fact is that the evidence presented demonstrates that they are not.
"I am just saying that I need to have man in the Garden of Eden"
One does not arrive at the truth by insisting that any conclusion must be true, and conforming the evidence to support that conclusion or ignoring it when the evidence contradicts that conclusion. Theories are formed to fit the evidence, never the opposite.
"and only accept positions that explain whey they can not find evidence of his being there."
And the evidence clearly shows that the earliest hominid fossils are not found in the Middle East because our ancestors did not originate there. If you look out your window and see a bird sitting in a tree, that observation alone is certainly not a logical basis for inisisting that that bird was born in that tree and had been sitting there its entire life. We find only relatively recent hominid fossils in the Middle East not because we were created separately from the hominids known to have existed in Africa, but because those more recent hominids descended from them and migrated into the area.
"As for occupation of the middle east, it is not new"
No, it is not new as far as the history of cities goes, but where hominid evolution is concerned, we have only spent about the last 20% of our history inhabiting the area.
--BDT
|
|
|
Post by larrygn on Oct 25, 2003 13:42:48 GMT -5
Traffic Demon: I am sorry to say that I am getting less impressed with you on each post. Just what is your scientific backgound. Mine in Analytical chemistry, Radio-chemical separations, and physics. My degree is from the U of Il, under Dr. h. V. Malmstadt. I do not consider myself to be ignorant of scientific fact or what it means.
Your interpretations of science is far from accurate, and you certainly have no coception of what it took to get date agreements for age of the earth, moon, etc.
If you have flawless proof give it to me, but if you have perfection, you don't have science - do you!
Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Oct 25, 2003 14:07:37 GMT -5
Traffic Demon: I am sorry to say that I am getting less impressed with you on each post. Just what is your scientific backgound. Mine in Analytical chemistry, Radio-chemical separations, and physics. My degree is from the U of Il, under Dr. h. V. Malmstadt. I do not consider myself to be ignorant of scientific fact or what it means. Your interpretations of science is far from accurate, and you certainly have no coception of what it took to get date agreements for age of the earth, moon, etc. If you have flawless proof give it to me, but if you have perfection, you don't have science - do you! Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry If your background is so good,then display science instead of personal attacks,second geussings,underestimations,and absured claims,like any human fossil not found in the middle east is to work of Satan. That makes you sound like a less that credible witness yourself,as you present no evidence to support your claims.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Oct 25, 2003 14:14:47 GMT -5
michealdark: even I will give you information that Swiss sites shows modern man on Lake Geneva dated in the 20,000BC period, definitely not first in Malta. My question is where are they found in the Garden of Eden, and if not WHY? Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry But my question to you is,are they stone settlements,or caves,or shacks? Did the site have any kind of true structure? See what I'm getting at? And you tip-toed around my question of why do you think humans outside the Middle East are the work of Satan? How could Neanderthal be considered a work of Satan? If they are of Satanic origin wouldn't they have tried to,and most likely,killed the entire population of Modern Man in Europe,and why would they trade and communicate with them,and also(as demonstrated by burying rituals) display very human emotions? That makes 0 sense to me. Please if you're goin g to make a claim like that,present evidence or at least elaborate on the claim.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Oct 25, 2003 15:00:38 GMT -5
larrygn - "I am sorry to say that I am getting less impressed with you on each post."
Based on what? Would you care to provide even a single example of a statement that I have made contradictory to the evidence?
"Just what is your scientific backgound."
Not that it matters, but my background is in physical anthropology and geology. Ultimately though, our respective credentials are irrelevant to the discussion, as the validity of a claim is determined by its consistency with the evidence, not the degrees of its proponents.
"Your interpretations of science is far from accurate""
Again, would you care to provide specific examples of where my statements have been inconsistent with science, with your evidence which demonstrates my statements false? Would a more accurate interpretation be simply to dismiss any fossils found outside the Middle East as creations of Satan as you have done? Every one of my statements has been backed up by evidence that can be checked by anyone reading this thread; not a single claim of yours has been accompanied by such evidence.
"and you certainly have no coception of what it took to get date agreements for age of the earth, moon, etc."
Ah yes, we're back to your global scientific conspiracy to falsify these dates, but we're still without your evidence of the existence of such a conspiracy. Thank you, come again.
"If you have flawless proof give it to me, but if you have perfection, you don't have science - do you!"
When has science ever required "flawless proof," when absolute proof is only obtainable in mathematics? Science does not require a theory to be flawless, only that it be consistent with the evidence as my statements have been.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Oct 28, 2003 0:27:07 GMT -5
Latest theory is that everything is made out of strings. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.htmlI somtimes believe that Gods ways are so far above our ways and God's thoughts are so far above our thoughts that everything we think about God and ourselves is only a very distant approximation of what really is, hardly worth argumentation.
|
|
|
Post by Kee on Oct 28, 2003 13:35:02 GMT -5
Latest theory is that everything is made out of strings. Great article Pietro. Thank you for the link!
I definitely agree that our concepts are far too limited and too shallow to ever encompkmtyolp God. Here's an applet I really love because it conveys to me visually how our thoughts, concepts, beliefs are like but one grain of sand in the vastness of all oceans.
it is called... Powers of Tenmicro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Oct 29, 2003 6:09:40 GMT -5
Great article Pietro. Thank you for the link.
I definitely agree that our concepts are far too limited and too shallow to ever encompkmtyolp God. Here's an applet I really love because it conveys to me visually how our thoughts, concepts, beliefs are like but one grain of sand in the vastness of all oceans.
it is called... Powers of TenReply: Hey, if Ten is Powerful we had better not upset it! It could be God in disguise! Joking. I just couldn't resist saying that. Got a strange sense of humour! ;D Andy.
|
|