| |
| Author |
Message |
| NBarden |
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 5468
Location: I don't know...
|
You’ve met the first.
I think its not unlikely that he returns this century, but that’s what they thought at the time of the crusades. I believe that he’ll probably return WITHIN a few thousand years, at ANYTIME during that period. I don’t think that a later date than that is really probable, although completely possible. |
-Trade With Me
Add the popcorn smiley to your sig, help it achieve world domination.
What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about?
As I lay in bed staring at the stars last night, I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
Spotlight on....Sense of Obligation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| ingold55 |
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 1199
Location: Out on the front line
|
just to throw something into circulation...
The Bible says that Jesus will come when everyone least expects it, so does that mean that maybe He won’t come soon, because we are all expecting it...?
Just a thought...  |
There is a power in this world beyond any of us, and Jesus is that power and The Savior.
this is my attempt to look cool.
Trade list (Want Balrogs and Aragorns) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| NBarden |
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:06 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 5468
Location: I don't know...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam-Wise |
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:51 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 163
Location: Shire
|
| Celebrembor, are you a Christian? |
My Greatest friend is Jesus Christ.
He's the source of all power.
X+3=8-2. {X=3}. I love little algebra problems! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Elessar's Socks |
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:51 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 349
Location:
|
Anonymous Prodigy wrote: Elessar’s Socks wrote: the Milky Way Galaxy is actually predicted to collide with Andromeda Galaxy in a few billion years.
WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! 
But it’ll be fun! Check out the The Mice, just one of many recorded collisions. I’ve always had a laugh at this one. XDDD
Oh, and if folks haven’t seen the Hubble Ultra Deep Field before, it’s well worth a look. Nope it’s not our entire observable universe, not even close! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| NBarden |
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:05 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 5468
Location: I don't know...
|
I’m referring to the Milky Way galaxy on collisions.
But you’re ignoring the main point and attacking on details, which is what we do in debate when we can’t find anything else wrong with a case...
Oh, and it looks back 13 billion light years? Evolutionist perspective...
UNIVERSE IS 13 BILLION YEARS OLD! HAH!
Creationist perspective...
Accounting for the decaying speed of light (entropy) and a rapidly expanding universe...yeah, makes sense for several thousand years. |
-Trade With Me
Add the popcorn smiley to your sig, help it achieve world domination.
What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about?
As I lay in bed staring at the stars last night, I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
Spotlight on....Sense of Obligation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Elessar's Socks |
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:28 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 349
Location:
|
NBarden, I don’t know how far I can "debate" this with you when it seems like you’re not even reading my posts (because if you did, you would know whether those pictures were an attack or not). I have been making a few and VERY SPECIFIC points:
Elessar’s Socks wrote: You can’t use science to prove or disprove the existence of God
NBarden wrote: No, but you can use science to PROVE that you can’t disprove God scientifically. NBarden wrote: All you can do is prove from an inductive standpoint that it is PROBABLE that God exists, which I’ll get around to later.
Unless you want to change your statements, looks like we agree on this. First point settled. Moving on.
Elessar’s Socks wrote: IMO the real problem science has with religion is that they have different agendas. Science aims to further our knowledge through the scientific method, revising and discarding theories as necessary.
I can give you plenty of examples of science revising and discarding theories. I have already brought up the old theory that the Sun (and other planets) orbited the Earth. That theory was revised to have the planets orbiting the Sun in perfect circles. Then that was further revised to have the planets orbiting the Sun in ellipses. Revision.
Or remember the mysterious aether scientists postulated was the medium through which light propagated? Maybe not, because it didn’t fit our measurements and so that theory was ultimately discarded.
Or how about dark matter, whose presence we infer but can’t observe directly? We postulate its existence to account for the behavior we CAN see. When we learn more about it you can bet we’ll be revising that, too.
Have I shown you that science revises and discards theories?
Elessar’s Socks wrote: Religion aims to maintain the status quo, sticking to one explanation despite all evidence to the contrary.
You believe in creationism now, yes? Radiometric dating--not to be trusted. Millions of dinosaur fossils--manufactured by people and carefully placed all over the world to deceive the public. In fact, all contrary evidence (or observations, if you’d like) is either outright faulty, or some form of intentional trickery. You will always believe in creationism. Right? If the answer is yes, that comes back to...
Elessar’s Socks wrote: IMO the real problem science has with religion is that they have different agendas.
Is that "main point" enough for you, or were you referring to some other point I was supposed to have made?
P.S. Hope someone enjoyed the pics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| AgentDrake |
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 667
Location: Halfway between eccentric and insane...
|
Elessar’s Socks wrote: NBarden, I don’t know how far I can "debate" this with you when it seems like you’re not even reading my posts (because if you did, you would know whether those pictures were an attack or not). I have been making a few and VERY SPECIFIC points:
Elessar’s Socks wrote: You can’t use science to prove or disprove the existence of God
NBarden wrote: No, but you can use science to PROVE that you can’t disprove God scientifically. NBarden wrote: All you can do is prove from an inductive standpoint that it is PROBABLE that God exists, which I’ll get around to later.
Unless you want to change your statements, looks like we agree on this. First point settled. Moving on.
Elessar’s Socks wrote: IMO the real problem science has with religion is that they have different agendas. Science aims to further our knowledge through the scientific method, revising and discarding theories as necessary.
I can give you plenty of examples of science revising and discarding theories. I have already brought up the old theory that the Sun (and other planets) orbited the Earth. That theory was revised to have the planets orbiting the Sun in perfect circles. Then that was further revised to have the planets orbiting the Sun in ellipses. Revision.
Or remember the mysterious aether scientists postulated was the medium through which light propagated? Maybe not, because it didn’t fit our measurements and so that theory was ultimately discarded.
Or how about dark matter, whose presence we infer but can’t observe directly? We postulate its existence to account for the behavior we CAN see. When we learn more about it you can bet we’ll be revising that, too.
Have I shown you that science revises and discards theories?
The Creationist’s problem isn’t with science (well, shouldn’t be.) Science is great.Unfortunately, due to a bunch of short-sighted religious thinkers preaching the "power of positive thinking" church, religion has been divorced from science in the minds of the people. Hence the title of this thread.
Not that it hasn’t happened before. Like I said, there have been lots of times where those in power in the church tried to dismiss science, not for the sake of religion, but because it would take away their personal power. Think The Church vs. Galileo.
Elessar’s Socks wrote: Religion aims to maintain the status quo, sticking to one explanation despite all evidence to the contrary.
You believe in creationism now, yes? Radiometric dating--not to be trusted. Millions of dinosaur fossils--manufactured by people and carefully placed all over the world to deceive the public. In fact, all contrary evidence (or observations, if you’d like) is either outright faulty, or some form of intentional trickery. You will always believe in creationism. Right? If the answer is yes, that comes back to...
Idiotic argument. I mean the creationist one.
Better responses (at least, I hope better):
Radiometric dating: accurate, IF AND ONLY IF we know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at the time. Which we don’t that far back. From either POV, the environment would have been radically different, and that would likely include atmospheric differences.
Fossil record: First off, the geological column that you see in all the textbooks is a theoretical construct. Nowhere in the world has that a significant portion of the column been found in one place. Further, there have been locations in which the strata are "out of the correct order." Also, the Deluge Theory (AKA Noah’s Flood) easily explains what bits of the geological column we do have.
Pangea and Continental Drift: Interestingly, the Bible makes mention of a supercontinent and continental drift a heck of a long time before anyone else in Gen 10:25 (or, that seems to be a reasonable interpretation of a semi-vague reference, anyway.)
Elessar’s Socks wrote: IMO the real problem science has with religion is that they have different agendas.
Is that "main point" enough for you, or were you referring to some other point I was supposed to have made?
Science and religion don’t have conflicting agendas; both are aimed at determining Truth on some level or another. Mainstream scientists and mainstream religious leaders have different agendas.
P.S. Hope someone enjoyed the pics.
Pics? Where?
|
| Never kid about politicians. The more bizarre the joke, the more likely it is to come true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Elessar's Socks |
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 349
Location:
|
Fair arguments, AgentDrake. Thanks for the reply!
Oh, and I meant the pictures a few posts above since galaxy collisions were brought up. In case people missed it I already said they were inconsequential to proving/disproving the existence of God (to me, at least)... but they make for some darn cool sightseeing.
And hey, you can turn religious looking at the Deep Field images.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Celebrimbor |
Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:55 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Location: UNKNOWN
|
Sam-Wise wrote: Celebrembor, are you a Christian?
Depends what you mean by, "a christian". The word is so watered-down, and many claim to be christians these days and don’t live up to it.
If you mean me as a guy who has dedicated his life to the relationship between him and Our Maker, then yes, I am a Christian.
The funny thing is, I’ve come to realize more and more that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. A religion is just a bunch of rules to follow.
But a relationship is getting to know someone intimately. My desire is to know God more.
I proudly admit that I am a christian. |
My Trading List
Popcorn is not gooey like fat, and also not crunchy like potato chips, but crispy like lettuce which makes it a healthy snack.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
|