Awesome things "god" does.

[normiss 803]

If that's all you need then I'm happy that it works for you.
Seriously.

[winsor 236]

Quote

I'm not here to convince or prove anything to anybody...

I'm just telling you that life is all the evidence that I need.

Which means less than nothing.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Cannot be creditable. Lisle's claim does not account for light (nor anything else) that has traveled billions of years across the universe from the most distant galaxy. Unless, of course, you want to claim that the light merely took a wrong turn and got lost until it swallowed it's pride and asked for directions from God.

He also discusses this theory: Distant Starlight

Somehow I knew that you would counter with that hogwash. It explains absolutely nothing and constantly refers back to scripture. His convention is not testable, therefore, it is junk. What is known is the light we enjoy comes from a star that is roughly 93 million miles from us. That is testable, as is light from the furthest galaxy.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

Quote

Cannot be creditable. Lisle's claim does not account for light (nor anything else) that has traveled billions of years across the universe from the most distant galaxy. Unless, of course, you want to claim that the light merely took a wrong turn and got lost until it swallowed it's pride and asked for directions from God.

He also discusses this theory: Distant Starlight

Really?!? Since we can't measure the speed of light one way, we can arbitrarily say light gets to us instantaneously, as long as it makes the total round trip at 186,000 mps? Do you not see how paper thin that is?

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Really?!? Since we can't measure the speed of light one way, we can arbitrarily say light gets to us instantaneously, as long as it makes the total round trip at 186,000 mps? Do you not see how paper thin that is?

What I want to know is how does the light know which direction it's going?

I mean, if I stand in my garden and shine one torch east and one torch west, what speed are the beams going? How about north and south or up and down?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 24]

Interesting…

Quote

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for just-so stories, because we have prior commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

- Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, biologist, and social commentator

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

Interesting…

Quote

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for just-so stories, because we have prior commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

- Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, biologist, and social commentator

The thing is, it is not "against common sense" to suppose that light traveling from a distant star would travel at the same speed as light travelling to that star. To arbitrarily decide that light travels to us instantaneously from a star to us, in order to fit a Bronze Age understanding of the age of the universe, that is counter-intuitive.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

The thing is, it is not "against common sense" to suppose that light traveling from a distant star would travel at the same speed as light travelling to that star. To arbitrarily decide that light travels to us instantaneously from a star to us, in order to fit a Bronze Age understanding of the age of the universe, that is counter-intuitive.

No doubt about that. We can test and show that to be true. That's not the point. It is an assumption that it has always been that way (with regard to origins). I admit, a good assumption, based on the evidence of what we see today, and coming from a materialistic point of view. The quote above, however, was really in reference to NDT Evolution (molecules-to-man).

The Bronze Age comment is derrogatory, presumptive, and just plain ignorant.

Really goes back to what I've talked about before with regard to our worldview, our assumptions based on that worldview, which in turn influences how we interpret the evidence.

The quote that I posted above is very telling. It seems to be a great example of the bias in the scientific community. The same bias that was discussed in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."

Then again, that Harvard Professor is probably not in the same category as Kallend. He's probably an idiot also. Probably in the same category as that Queen bandmember with a PhD....or anyone else who disagrees with the atheistic evolutionary worldview....who claims to be a scientist.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

and just plane ignorant

That's ironic.

The bronze age comment is appropriate, as the explanations offered do not account for the facts uncovered since then.
Seriously, Jaybird, AIG is a complete crock of shit. You show great intellectual weakness, laziness and gullibility citing it. I thought you were smarter than that.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

Quote

The thing is, it is not "against common sense" to suppose that light traveling from a distant star would travel at the same speed as light travelling to that star. To arbitrarily decide that light travels to us instantaneously from a star to us, in order to fit a Bronze Age understanding of the age of the universe, that is counter-intuitive.

No doubt about that. We can test and show that to be true. That's not the point. It is an assumption that it has always been that way (with regard to origins). I admit, a good assumption, based on the evidence of what we see today, and coming from a materialistic point of view. The quote above, however, was really in reference to NDT Evolution (molecules-to-man).

The Bronze Age comment is derrogatory, presumptive, and just plane ignorant.

Really goes back to what I've talked about before with regard to our worldview, our assumptions based on that worldview, which in turn influences how we interpret the evidence.

The quote that I posted above is very telling. It seems to be a great example of the bias in the scientific community. The same bias that was discussed in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."

Then again, that Harvard Professor is probably not in the same category as Kallend. He's probably an idiot also. Probably in the same category as that Queen bandmember with a PhD....or anyone else who disagrees with the atheistic evolutionary worldview....who claims to be a scientist.

I don't mean "Bronze Age" to be derogatory. The "science" in the bible was limited by the age that it was written in. That would be the bronze age, and the iron age. People are going to look back on our understanding of our universe in a thousand years, and see some of our presuppositions as ignorant as well.

ETA: The bible was written in part in the iron age in europe as well. Forgive my ignorance.

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Quote

and just plane plain ignorant

That's ironic.

Typing fast....sorry.

Quote

Seriously, Jaybird, AIG is a complete crock of shit. You show great intellectual weakness, laziness and gullibility citing it. I thought you were smarter than that.

I understand that you think any opposing view is a crock of shit steve. However, Professor Richard Lewontin would disagree with you...and he's not with AiG.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

I don't mean "Bronze Age" to be derogatory. The "science" in the bible was limited by the age that it was written in. That would be the bronze age. People are going to look back on our understanding of our universe in a thousand years, and see some of our presuppositions as ignorant as well.

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, however, where it touches on the scientific subjects, it is spot on. Incredibly spot on. It was penned by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit (e.g. It's the Word of God). The theological term is Plenary Inspiration. It means that God inspired the writers to write exactly as He directed without taking away from their individuality, personality, writing styles, personal input, etc. Since it is the Word of God primarily written by men, it is authoritative in what it claims and describes. The "scientific knowledge" of the men at the time is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure God is more "up on" physics than even Kallend or that Queen bandmember with a PhD.

[normiss 803]

Wow.

I think I need a foil hat now.

[Heatmiser 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't mean "Bronze Age" to be derogatory. The "science" in the bible was limited by the age that it was written in. That would be the bronze age. People are going to look back on our understanding of our universe in a thousand years, and see some of our presuppositions as ignorant as well.

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, however, where it touches on the scientific subjects, it is spot on. Incredibly spot on. It was penned by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit (e.g. It's the Word of God). The theological term is Plenary Inspiration. It means that God inspired the writers to write exactly as He directed without taking away from their individuality, personality, writing styles, personal input, etc. Since it is the Word of God primarily written by men, it is authoritative in what it claims and describes. The "scientific knowledge" of the men at the time is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure God is more "up on" physics than even Kallend or that Queen bandmember with a PhD.

Sooo...is it "touching upon scientific subjects" when it describes men as having millennia long life-spans, the creation of the world, universe, so on out of plausible order, and interpreted to have been created in an incredibly short timespan, an incredibly short time ago? Or are those things fables, allegorical, or what?

What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

[winsor 236]

Quote

Interesting…



- Harvard Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, biologist, and social commentator

Not really.

Argumentum ad Vericundiam is a favorite fallacy of yours, eh?

I hate to break it to you, but the faculty at that overrated divinty school is not what sets it apart, it's the student body (such as it is) - as anyone from the Educated Class could tell you.


BSBD,

Winsor

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

I don't mean "Bronze Age" to be derogatory. The "science" in the bible was limited by the age that it was written in. That would be the bronze age. People are going to look back on our understanding of our universe in a thousand years, and see some of our presuppositions as ignorant as well.

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, however, where it touches on the scientific subjects, it is spot on. Incredibly spot on. It was penned by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit (e.g. It's the Word of God). The theological term is Plenary Inspiration. It means that God inspired the writers to write exactly as He directed without taking away from their individuality, personality, writing styles, personal input, etc. Since it is the Word of God primarily written by men, it is authoritative in what it claims and describes. The "scientific knowledge" of the men at the time is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure God is more "up on" physics than even Kallend or that Queen bandmember with a PhD.

I would have flunked (okay, maybe given Ds to) any of the authors of the Scriptures had they been my Physics students.

Anyone who thinks the KJV contains much in the way of "knowledge" does not know very much.


BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Quote

The thing is, it is not "against common sense" to suppose that light traveling from a distant star would travel at the same speed as light travelling to that star. To arbitrarily decide that light travels to us instantaneously from a star to us, in order to fit a Bronze Age understanding of the age of the universe, that is counter-intuitive.

No doubt about that. We can test and show that to be true. That's not the point.

No, that was exactly the point.

Do you even read the articles you link to or do you just see the title and a doctorate and decide it's worthy of blind regurgitation?

Quote

The Bronze Age comment is derrogatory, presumptive, and just plain ignorant.

In what way?

Quote

Really goes back to what I've talked about before with regard to our worldview, our assumptions based on that worldview, which in turn influences how we interpret the evidence.

And as I've said to you before, there are only two assumptions here: one is that evidence is useful, the other that it is useless.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where did matter/energy come from?

Where did your god come from?

He has always been.

The irony meter just pegged.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The thing is, it is not "against common sense" to suppose that light traveling from a distant star would travel at the same speed as light travelling to that star. To arbitrarily decide that light travels to us instantaneously from a star to us, in order to fit a Bronze Age understanding of the age of the universe, that is counter-intuitive.

No doubt about that. We can test and show that to be true. That's not the point. It is an assumption that it has always been that way (with regard to origins). I admit, a good assumption, based on the evidence of what we see today, and coming from a materialistic point of view. The quote above, however, was really in reference to NDT Evolution (molecules-to-man).

The Bronze Age comment is derrogatory, presumptive, and just plane ignorant.

Really goes back to what I've talked about before with regard to our worldview, our assumptions based on that worldview, which in turn influences how we interpret the evidence.

The quote that I posted above is very telling. It seems to be a great example of the bias in the scientific community. The same bias that was discussed in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."

Then again, that Harvard Professor is probably not in the same category as Kallend. He's probably an idiot also. Probably in the same category as that Queen bandmember with a PhD....or anyone else who disagrees with the atheistic evolutionary worldview....who claims to be a scientist.

I don't mean "Bronze Age" to be derogatory. The "science" in the bible was limited by the age that it was written in. That would be the bronze age, and the iron age. People are going to look back on our understanding of our universe in a thousand years, and see some of our presuppositions as ignorant as well.

ETA: The bible was written in part in the iron age in europe as well. Forgive my ignorance.

If I recall correctly (which I do, 2 Chronicles 2:13-14), the Hebrews had to hire a guy from Tyre to make their bronzework for the temple. They hadn't even entered the bronze age themselves, they were neolithic. Still diddling around with rocks while the Egyptians and Greeks were inventing math and science as we know it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Prove it.

I don't believe you.

Prove your God even exists!

Where did matter/energy come from?

No one knows what caused the Big Bang or what came before it. There is lots of objective evidence to support Evolution. Nothing to support creationism.

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

Quote

I know that each of us is God, singularly and collectively.

Hail The All Powerful Dan Johnson!

Hail to you also Jaybird!!!

You are also all powerful though you choose not to realize it.
That is what thousands of years of conditioning will do to ones' psyche.
Don't worry . Soon all will awaken .
It is the plan!

Peace.

[DanJohnson 0]

***Oh...ok...so he's been raised from the dead with the testimony of eye witnesses who were tortured and killed because they wouldn't deny what they saw and experienced. ALL HAIL DAN JOHNSON!!

[DanJohnson 0]

***The problem is that Brown-Johnson is trying to pass off astral projection as some type of neo-quasi Christianity. Excuse us for taking exception.

Quote

Actually it is my belief that only by following exactly the teachings of the Master, Jesus the Christ can one accurately call themselves "Christian".
To fall short of that goal leaves one a student .

Christ is a title earned when one reaches a certain level of knowledge kinda like a PHD represents a certain level of learning.

If I believed John Kallend was the saviour I wouldn't call my self or a group of like minded people PHDians.

Maybe it's time you look inward and seek the Truth as taught by the man who became the Christ.

• Quote

[DanJohnson 0]

Quote

Quote

With so many different takes on Christianity I still don't see how his is any less valid then yours or anyone else's.

At least Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah Witness', Mormons agree more than they disagree. There really is no agreement with Brown-Johnson. I mean, like WAY beyond that. He's more radical than scientology. At least Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith wrote a book, something concrete to explain their rebelious musings.

It is human nature to be a part of the herd and to believe that if the herd believes something to be true then it is true.
I repeat the words of the Master.
To find the Truth look within(yourself).

[DanJohnson 0]

*** Mormons & JW's. They radically depart from the fundamentals of what makes Christianity. They fall into the category of cult.

Quote

Priceless.

You know Jaybird , years ago some 30 jump guy was talking to a newer jumper telling him he'd have to do three clear and pulls before he could do a hop and pop.
The newer jumper was adamant that his instructor told him he'd have to have three prcp s.
I was standing nearby listening with another jumper and she said,"aren't you going to tell him(refering to the 30 jump guy)?"
I told her I'd explain it to the newer guy after the 30 jump guy walked off.
As for the 30 jump guy he'd realize his error in thinking later and his own discovery would have a greater impact on him than simply being corrected.

I think I'll let you come to your own discovery.

• Quote