liquid water is a requirement for life on earth.
but in other, much colder worlds, life might exist beyond the bounds of water-based chemistry.
cornell chemical engineers and astronomers offer a template for life that could thrive in a harsh, cold world specifically titan, the giant moon of saturn.
EOM,
But Viviane is asking about a specific personal experience that Abiather claims to have had, that is in no way the same as you not being willing to research basic science. There are lots of popular science books that will explain this stuff to you if you want to. There isn't a dummy's guide to skyping god with your brain switched off.
hi people, may i firstly thank those who have responded to to my intro article, i am replying to you all as a new topic because the direct messaging is not working for me at the moment so i can clarify my perspective on bible study.
yes there are many arguments that are put forward to demonstrate for example that the bible has been composed of numerous preexisting creation story's ect, my focus is to give the bible the same opportunity to defend itself as anyone reasonably expects if charged with some crime they are not guilty of.. i find for example the account of jesus response when questioned about the divorce certificate 'but it was not so in the beginning' confirms that moses allowed changes to be made to the original, that said consider also the religious traditions moses people had been exposed to, the story of the god enki who seduced even his own grandchildren and the well known incest of the egyptian royalty, given the genetic cost, are such practices any more right now than they were then?
communities that practice close relative marriages today are well documented for there higher risk of numerous health problems so how would you find moses on that basis, guilty or not guilty as jesus did because he understood why moses took the creation story's of other cultures and gave his people there own creation story that taught them to avoid the general pagan practice of incest.before looking any deeper at moses creation story may i also ask the question why does jesus knowing that god promised he would never again destroy the world by a flood as he did in noah's day say 'as in the days of noah ..the flood came and took them all away' so what did jesus actually mean mt 24:.
liquid water is a requirement for life on earth.
but in other, much colder worlds, life might exist beyond the bounds of water-based chemistry.
cornell chemical engineers and astronomers offer a template for life that could thrive in a harsh, cold world specifically titan, the giant moon of saturn.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Viviane,
I suspect fishy is going to bail on this thread very shortly! Can't have the filthy mudbloods pointing out the gaping holes in fishy's arguments.
humans have produced many movies on extraterrestrials.
yet all of them are shown in ugly form.
why cant we depict an et more beautiful/handsome than humans.
Hang on, there was an international atomic war 5000 years ago? Who knew?
humans have produced many movies on extraterrestrials.
yet all of them are shown in ugly form.
why cant we depict an et more beautiful/handsome than humans.
The example I gave of the Hanar from mass effect are not human at all, they look like jellyfish if anything.
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Hanar
I think the idea of highlighting another dangerous cult trying to recruit is very sensible. Respect to Cofty for the idea.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Is that what you think, do you?
Yes, it's a skill called English comprehension, you should try it some time. For example given the nature of your posts and your screen name it is not difficult to work out that your name refers to the book of Matthew rather than a preference for sitting for hours with a rod and line.
The facts are that the bible writers were not reporters hence the widely dissimilar writing styles throughout the book.
Says you.
Have you not read the bible? The bible writers vary greatly in style, the one style they don't use is journalistic reporting. It is a fact, you merely have to read your bible to see the evidence.
Why did you conclude that the author meant that?I hope that is a sufficiently simple explanation of the differences
Because the author was incapable of expressing him or herself clearly.
I ought to point out that tangencies actually implies the common points between the two theories
Now you are thinking. That is what the author meant. That is the point.
The common points between the two theories is Newtonian physics, Relativity builds on the principles of Newtonian physics. You haven't made a point at all and certainly nothing in relation to your original question. Your original question shows that you know little about physics and yet now you are claiming that you have made some point about relativity? So why not actually state what your point is if you have one?
Since you so very kindly allowed me to believe what I like about your posts I will also assume
As I have shown before, you assume too much and you jump to conclusions. That is what your posts unveil about your thinking. I mean no disrespect.
Since I am not the only person to point out that you are incapable of stating your opinions clearly then perhaps you ought to take on board the criticism about your dreadful word salad. I will make another assumption and guess that any reply you make will also utterly fail to address any of the actual points I made. For example I answered both your question about reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity and the one about why I believe the bible to be myth and you completely ignored those answers in favour of some poorly thought out ad hominen attack when the only criticism you can make of my original answer is that you didn't like what I wrote. What this reveals is that you are not here to listen even to the answers to your own questions and that your opinions are so delicate that they are unable to cope with a dissenting view.
I have never understood some peoples need to say 'no disrespect' when they mean the precise opposite, at least have the balls to stand by your insults.
BTW referring to oneself in the third person 'i.e. the author' makes you sound very pretentious, I would suggest not doing it if you don't want to sound to sound like a twat.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Bohm,
I read the other day that if you think about it when you look up at the stars you are dangling over a bottomless pit of nothing and the only thing that stops you falling into it is the incredibly weak gravity field of Earth.
Hopefully that makes up for you trying to scramble my brain with your trip to Alpha Centauri!
humans have produced many movies on extraterrestrials.
yet all of them are shown in ugly form.
why cant we depict an et more beautiful/handsome than humans.
There is the alien in the beginning of the Prometheus movie, he is quite handsome, The Na'vi in Avatar, in Mass Effect the Asari and the Hanar, in Warhammer 40000 the Eldar are beautiful. In fact I could probably do this all day if you want.
The word better is an entirely subjective description though so I suggest just googling beautiful alien and finding something that fits your criteria, unless of course you have already decided that nothing can fit your criteria.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Bohm,
Eden one is my non-evil twin with another picture of Hobbes for an avatar! Easy mistake to make though.
As a lowly engineer I will bow to your superior knowledge of physics, Hopefully the rest of my explanation is sound though?!
