Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I do not believe that I am backtracking (whatever that means).Definition of what? I am sorry I do not follow what you mean.
No, I do not recall using this rationale towards anyone but you (maybe I have to those who accuse me of having blind faith, I am not sure). I have asked fellow posters to prove something, but only in jest, in response to their challenge for me to prove what I obviously have explained numerous times that I take by faith.
Originally posted by Da PittmanStill waiting 😉
You have claimed that I have faith in science, so how do I have faith in science? Please explain to me how I have faith in science?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Really, is that why I spend so much time providing fact after fact in support of what I write?
I have not seen any facts. All I have seen was Christian propaganda web sites.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So you acknowledge the truth of the message you just discount the messenger? That is the strangest thing I have ever read. Truth is truth irrespective of who communicates it. If Pinocchio and George Washington both said that 2+2=4, it would not matter that both of them have a history of lying, the fact that 2+2=4 is true regardless.
The truth is relative, and the best con artists use a small amount of the truth with just the right amount of lies to deceive people. That is what I was talking about.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I simply wanted you to be informed of the facts.
Again, I have not seen any fact, just your opinions and Christian propaganda web sites.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Wow, a lot of assumptions (are you fishing for personal information about me again?) 😄
Go to college…
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then what is the cause of this universe if nothing ever happens by accident and if there is no supernatural explanation, especially if the universe is far more wondrous then you can imagine?Why do you feel that this universe is so wondrous?
There is not just one cause for the universe. The universe has its own Karma. Everything changes over time, and this fact extends from the remote past into the distant future. We believe that about 13.5 billion years ago the universe was a lot smaller and hotter then it is now. This suggests a beginning, but that is only a suggestion; it maybe just as possible that this cosmic egg was just a stage that the universe was going through. There is just as much possibility that the universe is much older the 13.5 billion years; the universe maybe eternal, and ever changing. The current universe maybe just one incarnation of this ultraverse.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did just answer his question.
That was a stupid answer. The reason for what I say is that you have more faith in what PEOPLE say. This bible, you talk about, was written by people (humans). You have so much faith in these people that when they claim to be the word of a god, you believe it. 🙄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have not seen any facts. All I have seen was Christian propaganda web sites.
Shakyamunison, this is summary of the article that I submitted to you that you keep insisting is not factual:
Summary
The Second Law of Thermodynamics testifies that everything in the universe is "winding down." This agrees with the creation model which says that everything was created perfect and then sin marred its perfection. Creationism teaches that every process in the universe is going from order to disorder. Evolutionists, having no answer to this scientific truth, are vainly searching for some "undiscovered law of science" that would show how lifeless objects organize themselves to higher degrees of complexity.
Furthermore, the presence of corruption in the universe does not contradict the testimony of the overall design and order in the universe to the existence of an intelligent and all-powerful Creator. It gives further testimony to the Fall of man (Don Stewart, “Is The Universe Decaying?” http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/612.html).
Now, the first sentence about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. All this man is saying is that the Scriptures and scientific fact agree. Where is the problem? Where is the Christian propaganda?
The truth is relative, and the best con artists use a small amount of the truth with just the right amount of lies to deceive people. That is what I was talking about.
Why do you sound so cynical? Why don’t you just read wht is presented to you and specify what is not true (if in fact anything is untrue) instead of using this as a means of escaping the discussion or an excuse to avoid dealing with the facts. You have yet to point out what you believe is untrue about the above link.
Again, I have not seen any fact, just your opinions and Christian propaganda web sites.
Didn’t you just write this already? What propaganda? Can you be more specific?
Go to college…
This has nothing to do with the discussion and it leads me to believe that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
It appears that you are looking for a way out. Hey, if you don’t want to present your view and support then just say the word.
There is not just one cause for the universe. The universe has its own Karma. Everything changes over time, and this fact extends from the remote past into the distant future. We believe that about 13.5 billion years ago the universe was a lot smaller and hotter then it is now. This suggests a beginning, but that is only a suggestion; it maybe just as possible that this cosmic egg was just a stage that the universe was going through. There is just as much possibility that the universe is much older the 13.5 billion years; the universe maybe eternal, and ever changing. The current universe maybe just one incarnation of this ultraverse.
Now, you just made a statement that you cannot substantiate apart from your own faith or belief. Show me something valid that supports that the universe has its own “Karma.”
Karma is not defined as change. You are using the word “change” to stand for karma so that it appears that the word is legitimate. But here is what Merriam Dictionary’s definition of karma means:
Karma
: the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence.
I didn’t see the word “change” anywhere near that definition Shak. Could you be the one guilty of your own accusation of using a small amount of the truth with just the right amount of lies to deceive people?
You have not answered my question. I asked you why you believe that this universe is wondrous. Second, I have already explained to you that it has been determined that the universe had a starting point because it is expanding (still).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was a stupid answer. The reason for what I say is that you have more faith in what PEOPLE say. This bible, you talk about, was written by people (humans). You have so much faith in these people that when they claim to be the word of a god, you believe it. 🙄
But, you already know where I stand relative to the Bible. You know that I accept that it is true by faith. This is no mystery. I was showing that Da Pittman does essentially the same thing with reference to other people's so-called scientific findings.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveNo that is not an answer, how do I have faith in the words of others when they can show the tests, math and experiments to verify their claims?
You have faith in other people's words.
The problem with your link about Thermodynamics is that they show no supporting evidence, no test, math or experiments to prove that the universe supports their claim. They generalize it to the point of simplity “Simply stated, they are as follows:”that makes it easy to find holes. Quoted “The laws of thermodynamics provide some of the strongest scientific arguments for the existence of a Creator.” So where is the science to support this? They like to use common words to explain their theory like “closed system” so that the common man can understand, and then twist the meaning so that it makes scene if you don’t know what it really means. Their statement “The earth, they maintain, is not a closed system, but an open system which constantly receives abundant amounts of energy from the sun.” is false because the Sun has a finite amount of energy and in our solar system is a closed system and the Earth is a part of that closed system until the introduction of a new source.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Shakyamunison, this is summary of the article that I submitted to you that you keep insisting is not factual:Summary
The Second Law of Thermodynamics testifies that everything in the universe is "winding down." This agrees with the creation model which says that everything was created perfect and then sin marred its perfection. Creationism teaches that every process in the universe is going from order to disorder. Evolutionists, having no answer to this scientific truth, are vainly searching for some "undiscovered law of science" that would show how lifeless objects organize themselves to higher degrees of complexity. [/B]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not testify. Here is the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”
You are misapplying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is not winding down; the universe is heading toward equilibrium.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Furthermore, the presence of corruption in the universe does not contradict the testimony of the overall design and order in the universe to the existence of an intelligent and all-powerful Creator. It gives further testimony to the Fall of man (Don Stewart, “Is The Universe Decaying?” http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/612.html).
This is a statement with no proof. It is simply the opinion of the writer who has already shown that they have a limited knowledge of Thermodynamics. I would not trust this person!
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Now, the first sentence about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. All this man is saying is that the Scriptures and scientific fact agree. Where is the problem? Where is the Christian propaganda?
It is not a fact, and I have shown you why.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you sound so cynical? Why don’t you just read wht is presented to you and specify what is not true (if in fact anything is untrue) instead of using this as a means of escaping the discussion or an excuse to avoid dealing with the facts. You have yet to point out what you believe is untrue about the above link.
I did, over and over again. I have gone into great detail in the past showing how you and other Christian propagandists have miss used the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support their claims.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Didn’t you just write this already? What propaganda? Can you be more specific?This has nothing to do with the discussion and it leads me to believe that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A better education on your part would help you understand what I am saying. Propaganda? The above misapplied Second Law of Thermodynamics is a good example of propaganda.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It appears that you are looking for a way out. Hey, if you don’t want to present your view and support then just say the word.
I will not play this game.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Now, you just made a statement that you cannot substantiate apart from your own faith or belief. Show me something valid that supports that the universe has its own “Karma.”
Karma is a way to describe the cause and effect over time.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Karma is not defined as change. You are using the word “change” to stand for karma so that it appears that the word is legitimate. But here is what Merriam Dictionary’s definition of karma means:
What is change, to you?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Karma
: the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence.I didn’t see the word “change” anywhere near that definition Shak. Could you be the one guilty of your own accusation of using a small amount of the truth with just the right amount of lies to deceive people?
That is a very pore description of Karma. It is also a very Western interpretation. Here is a better description:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=447678
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You have not answered my question. I asked you why you believe that this universe is wondrous. Second, I have already explained to you that it has been determined that the universe had a starting point because it is expanding (still).
It has not been determined that the universe had a starting point. If you had more education on the subject, you would realize the idea of a beginning is an old idea that is no longer supported. The only thing we know about the beginning of the universe is that we do not know.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No that is not an answer, how do I have faith in the words of others when they can show the tests, math and experiments to verify their claims?The problem with your link about Thermodynamics is that they show no supporting evidence, no test, math or experiments to prove that the universe supports their claim. They generalize it to the point of simplity “Simply stated, they are as follows:”that makes it easy to find holes. Quoted “The laws of thermodynamics provide some of the strongest scientific arguments for the existence of a Creator.” So where is the science to support this? They like to use common words to explain their theory like “closed system” so that the common man can understand, and then twist the meaning so that it makes scene if you don’t know what it really means. Their statement “The earth, they maintain, is not a closed system, but an open system which constantly receives abundant amounts of energy from the sun.” is false because the Sun has a finite amount of energy and in our solar system is a closed system and the Earth is a part of that closed system until the introduction of a new source.
There is no twisting of anything because that was not his statement. "They" i.e. "the evolutionists" stated that the earth is not a closed system...etc, not the author of the article.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But, you already know where I stand relative to the Bible. You know that I accept that it is true by faith. This is no mystery. I was showing that Da Pittman does essentially the same thing with reference to other people's so-called scientific findings.
However, you are rigid and will not change your belief regardless of the evidence. Science has to change...
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYou missed the point of what I was saying, yet again and skipped over my first question yet again.
There is no twisting of anything because that was not his statement. "They" i.e. "the evolutionists" stated that the earth is not a closed system...etc, not the author of the article.