Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

I can tell you want to make progress. I'm troubled that you would speak ill of what was a part of my education in science, the scientific methodology, and in specific, Chemistry.

Where was I talking ill about the scientific method and chemistry?

Are you sure you don't have your wires crossed?

 

[Stuu]

Some Christians speak against Christianity being a religion. Jesus spoke out against the religious rulers of His day. But I believe true faith in the one true God should never be looked down upon, whether a relationship with God and Jesus or true religion which the Bible defines as visiting widows and orphans in their distress and keeping oneself unstained by the world.

I think that is all poisonous too.

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

Where was I talking ill about the scientific method and chemistry?

Are you sure you don't have your wires crossed?

No. I'm sorry. I am wrong. I thought you must be responding to what I said, but in that you were not. My apologies.

 

[Jacob]

I think that is all poisonous too.

Stuart

I think it is perfectly fine to do good works. Some people think of themselves more highly than they ought though, and the Bible warns against that. So we should press forward with God's message of love in Jesus Christ. That we would love God and love our neighbor as well.

It's difficult to know what is poisonous in a sin darkened world. I know sin is poison. Whether a person says they are a Christian by religion or by relationship it is worth attempting to fellowship with them. Otherwise I KNOW they need God's love.

The best to you. Shalom (peace).

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

Seems to me that Untellectual and 6days are the only wise and humble ones here at this site. The rest are ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing. Jesus warned us of them.

Praise God!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear All,

Seems to me that Untellectual and 6days are the only wise and humble ones here at this site. The rest are ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing. Jesus warned us of them.

Praise God!!

Michael

Speaking for myself Michael I simply tell it as I see it. I see no particular reason to believe that your God exists any more than any other, and nothing you've asserted has changed that.
You've talked about showing your God some love, well, I'll consider that if someone I know is shown some by your God.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

He (my God) has shown you and those you know LOVE by the fact that you have air to breathe. Much less two arms and two legs, instead of less than that. Also a mind and a mouth. So watch what you say. He shows me love and I am someone you know. Others you know receive love too, but if they are all atheists, they would not know it, if it hit them in the face. You wouldn't be a living soul if God did not show you love.

 

[gcthomas]

GC, we are making progress with you.
Let's review to see how you move closer towards the flood model, as you realize each of your points were incorrect.



Realizing your argument was wrong, you then said it was from sea bed sedimentation. Now realizing that argument was incorrect you have moved to refuting yourself...



Which is it GC..." nothing like flood deposits" or "many floods"
( and yes multiple layers do support the flood model, but that wasn't the point)

See how when we go with the Bible and with evidence, we don't need to keep changing our minds?

In the beginning God created...

You seem to be conflating a discussion of the Grand Canyon deposits, (which include layers of sea deposited limestones and sandstones, as well as sand dunes deposited during an extended period as a dry terrestrial desert), with a discussion of polystrate fossils as seen in the eastern US an Europe.

Do try to pay attention when contributors have taken the time to explain things to you.

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

He (my God) has shown you and those you know LOVE by the fact that you have air to breathe. Much less two arms and two legs, instead of less than that. Also a mind and a mouth. So watch what you say. He shows me love and I am someone you know. Others you know receive love too, but if they are all atheists, they would not know it, if it hit them in the face. You wouldn't be a living soul if God did not show you love.

Michael, I know you mean well and clearly you have your own problems, but if this really is the godless natural world I indeed think it is then I have little doubt that you'd still be believing in your God anyway and telling me all about His love and genuinely believing it was all true.
However if people are innocently created out of a supposed Godly "love" then surely nobody deserves to spend their whole lives, in some cases, trapped inside bodies that do not work except to give them great physical pain, confusion, fear and suffering. If some people can so obviously receive no godly love at all then afaic none of us do and I reject any that was ever directed at me from a god so selective, heartless and cruel.lain:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, I know you mean well and clearly you have your own problems, but if this really is the godless natural world I indeed think it is then I have little doubt that you'd still be believing in your God anyway and telling me all about His love and genuinely believing it was all true.
However if people are innocently created out of a supposed Godly "love" then surely nobody deserves to spend their whole lives, in some cases, trapped inside bodies that do not work except to give them great physical pain, confusion, fear and suffering. If some people can so obviously receive no godly love at all then afaic none of us do and I reject any that was ever directed at me from a god so selective, heartless and cruel.lain:

Go ahead and believe the way you do Alwight. No one will change your mind until you see Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven. And furthermore, you will see the Lord God on His Great White Throne in heaven. Don't expect Him to smile at you. You've chosen your path so far and you are so proud of it. Pride comes before the fall. You are going to end up saying in the future fire, "Well, why did the Lord God do this to me." But you did it to yourself by your choices. So you then inherit ECT whether you think God is not a Loving God or not.

But, if you change your mind and repent, and ask God for forgiveness now, He is Loving and Merciful, and will forgive all of your sins, and blot them out. Don't you want a nicer future?!

You reap what you sow.

God Keep You From The Wolves, Instead!!

 

[noguru]

No. I'm sorry. I am wrong. I thought you must be responding to what I said, but in that you were not. My apologies.

No problem sir. I still think you misunderstood my point. But I am realizing that it is doing no good to belabor that point.

 

[Jacob]

No problem sir. I still think you misunderstood my point. But I am realizing that it is doing no good to belabor that point.

If you mean your point about predication or predictability, I think I did misunderstand it.

 

[alwight]

Go ahead and believe the way you do Alwight. No one will change your mind until you see Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven. And furthermore, you will see the Lord God on His Great White Throne in heaven. Don't expect Him to smile at you. You've chosen your path so far and you are so proud of it. Pride comes before the fall. You are going to end up saying in the future fire, "Well, why did the Lord God do this to me." But you did it to yourself by your choices. So you then inherit ECT whether you think God is not a Loving God or not.

But, if you change your mind and repent, and ask God for forgiveness now, He is Loving and Merciful, and will forgive all of your sins, and blot them out. Don't you want a nicer future?!

You reap what you sow.

God Keep You From The Wolves, Instead!!

So be it then Michael, but I have very little doubt that everyone's fate is exactly the same in the end however much you think you can appease gods.

 

[noguru]

If you mean your point about predication or predictability, I think I did misunderstand it.

OK good. Thanks for being honest. But the point was a more broad one. Not restricted to predictability, but also inclusive of probability. Do you understand the common use difference in those terms?

 

[Jacob]

OK good. Thanks for being honest. But the point was a more broad one. Not restricted to predictability, but also inclusive of probability. Do you understand the common use difference in those terms?

I understand that someone thought of probability when I mentioned scientific predictability, in particular the repeatability of scientific experiments.

 

[noguru]

I understand that someone thought of probability when I mentioned scientific predictability, in particular the repeatability of scientific experiments.

You brought up how the concept of a consistent God had import into science at its conception after The Enlightenment. I was pointing out how the broader point applies to areas with which we cannot claim predictability for every event. But we can still call it consistency because of probability. You also ignored the other points I made which are relevant to the issue as well. I cannot say for sure why you want to keep focused on such a myopic view of science and ignore the overall influence Bacon, and others who accepted the consistency of God, had in our current understanding of these issues.

What exactly is your point about predictability in science and how does that support your model over the current model that you reject?

 

[Jacob]

You brought up how the concept of a consistent God had import into science at its conception after The Enlightenment. I was pointing out how the broader point applies to areas with which we cannot claim predictability for every event. But we can still call it consistency because of probability. You also ignored the other points I made which are relevant to the issue as well. I cannot say for sure why you want to keep focused on such a myopic view of science and ignore the overall influence Bacon, and others who accepted the consistency of God, had in our current understanding of these issues.

What exactly is your point about predictability in science and how does that support your model over the current model that you reject?

My point was that in Chemistry we can through the scientific method and process determine in a controlled environment that two substances will react a particular way when they are combined. If the environment were uncontrolled we do not believe we would be able to say that.

 

[noguru]

My point was that in Chemistry we can through the scientific method and process determine in a controlled environment that two substances will react a particular way when they are combined. If the environment were uncontrolled we do not believe we would be able to say that.

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system as well. This does not mean it has no influence in an open system. A controlled environment or closed system simply eliminates other forces that factor into the results. An open system or uncontrolled environment simply changes predictability of single events into probability in large numbers of events due to the various arrangements of other forces/principles/components. You still have not explained how this supports your model which invokes the supernatural over the currently accepted naturalistic models in science.

 

[Jacob]

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system as well. This does not mean it has no influence in an open system. A controlled environment or closed system simply eliminates other forces that factor into the results. An open system or uncontrolled environment simply changes predictability of single events into probability in large numbers of events due to the various arrangements of other forces/principles/components. You still have not explained how this supports your model which invokes the supernatural over the currently accepted naturalistic models in science.

I think you are asking me to do something that I am not intending to do, and I don't understand why.

As for closed and open systems, some people apply this to the universe. However, a controlled environment may or may not be a closed or open system. It simply means that the variables have been identified.

 

[noguru]

I think you are asking me to do something that I am not intending to do, and I don't understand why.

As for closed and open systems, some people apply this to the universe. However, a controlled environment may or may not be a closed or open system. It simply means that the variables have been identified.

I agree. I did not say any difference. However you do not seem to understand the implications of this. A closed system is controlled in regard to input of energy from outside. With the chemical reactions you were addressing factors can be controlled in way and that is a form of isolating a singular reaction. A closed system isolates heat exchange to within the system. It should also be noted that we can only approximate a closed system, though this does not negate its accuracy.

At any rate, you still have not explained how anything in this review of basic chemistry supports your model over the current model. Let me remind you that you started along these lines by trying to supply knowledge that the Holy Spirit has given which is not based upon empirical verification. Of course even the part in bold is inaccurate. Because these things are verified by empirical evidence from research.