http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4274187/.
this object is 13 billion light-years away.. light travels 300,000 kilometers per second.. it took 13 billion years for us to receive the light that was recorded as the image in the article:.
buy a cheap telescope at a department store, and you can see the andromeda galaxy easily.
Otherwise, he probably is a nice guy.
That reminded me of "I'm not sayin your mom's a whore, I'm just saying she has sex for money."
I'm open to the possibility that my beliefs are incorrect, are you open to the possibility that your non-beliefs are incorrect?
If you read the threads, many are saying what they beleive based on current information. Does that not tell you that they are open to updating their beliefs as more/better information becomes available?
do we see the foretold skoffers today?.
let's say, the bible never existed!
there never was a messiah!
This Book that we just may lay aside as of no consequence is solidly grounded on indisputable evidence, but we, as individuals, must be willing to dig out that evidence, and give it a thorough examination. To prove to ourselves whether it is all true, or not.Some individuals today when told this, laugh and scoff at the promises in the Bible, not knowing by doing that ridiculing are in actuality proving themselves the Bible to be true, so this Book they are laughing at is making fools out of them, but they arn't aware of even that much.
Just show me the evidence, then.
a scientific dissent from darwinism2 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism3 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism4 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
We are waiting NVL, What's your explanation?
For what?
roger ebert.
why i hate 3-d (and you should too)3-d is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.
hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal.
NVL - I think you've made that very clear :-)
I think you're a sweetheart :)
roger ebert.
why i hate 3-d (and you should too)3-d is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.
hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal.
Haha. He's a paid critic. He's made a career out of it.
At least he's honest about being biased :)
ok just one more about the june 15th wt and then i am done.
i have finished listing to it and am throwing it out but it helps to know the garbage my husband could be bring home also it helps to know so i can throw out stupid points to him.
it has really made him think over things.. ok first in par 11 it tells us "godly parents are responsible for instructing their children about jehovah and his ways.
The WT then gives this great example of how we can do this by telling us of one family that allowed their ten year-old son Brandon, to present a report entitled "Why Did Jehovah Use a Snake to Represent Satan?" "This isssue had brothered Brandon because he loves snakes, and he was upset that they were associated with Satan."
Wait, I thought Satan possesed the snake? Maybe it ws god's bad spirit, the same one that infected Saul.
a scientific dissent from darwinism2 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism3 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism4 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
You are simply out of touch with most people.
Good. Most people never critically examine anything and swallow whatever tripe someone pushes on them. I do find it interesting that, in order to support your "most people" idea, you link to a biased website. However in the world do you succeed at whatever business you are a business man at with all the bad data you seem to use for making decisions?
roger ebert.
why i hate 3-d (and you should too)3-d is a waste of a perfectly good dimension.
hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal.
I don't particularly care for 3-D, but Ebert can suck it for telling me what I should think. I've had enough of that to last a hundred lifetimes.
a scientific dissent from darwinism2 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism3 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism4 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
1. You and the list of prestigeous scientists/researchers on the list agree: Random Mutation and and Natural Selection CANNOT account for the complexity of Life.
Yes, and I pointed you to information that accounts for that just fine, has been observed in action and does not involve God, and you have ignored dealing with it.
2. Yet, the public consumption news sources, universities, and pulp info sources such as this board mostly give that impression and this is what many believe; though at the same time it is widely believed to be untrue by researchers. This is pure disinformation.
So? The media mis-reports things all the time, like that turkey contains a chemical that makes you sleepy. Urban legends and mis-information is repeated ALL the time. You did it above with your point number one I just quoted.
3. Neither you nor anyone else has given a plausible explanation of how interdependent systems in a single cell could have appeared simutaneously (as needed to function) or how they could have evolved.
You have'nt shown me proof god exists. What's your point? There is MORE evidence for evolution (it being observed in action, for instance) than there is for god (an old book full of contradictions).
4. Neither you nor anyone else has given any plausible explanation how something can come from nothing.
You are absolutely right. So god CAN'T exists since he had to come from somewhere....on the other hand, who, besides you, who just proved god can't exist, is saying life came from nothing?
5. Current related Darwinian theories like the geologic column, millions of years old dinosaurs, are ludicrous in light of clear depictions of dinosaurs in human art, and recent finds of stinking dinosaur soft tissue, blood cells and dna fragments in POREOUS SANDSTONE. I am much more comfortable with other arguments for an ancient age of the earth.
You're right. I saw a dinosaur in a movie a while back. That must be proof they exist today. And, whether or not you are comfortable with an idea has nothing to do with how true it is or isn't.
So, there is certainly no where near the body of evidence needed to even remotely suggest that God doesn't exist, or to hold that paradigm as a valid position. To the contrary, science - because of its advances, NEEDS a god to to account for the near infinite complexity of life as well as other things.
No, you again get it backwards (I hope you don't do that when picking out a date!). It's the astounding LACK of evidence for god and the evidence for everything else that strongly suggests you are wrong.
As a life-long business man, I can assure you that when there is a need - SOMEONE will step forward and sell you what you need. That someone is predicted in the bible, which has accurately predicted hundreds of other events:
Oh, a BUSINESS man, well, then, you must be smrt about thangs like genetics or munny or something cause your in business. Tell me, how much money do you make at this business? I am in business too and I want to see if'n yer better at business than me.
a scientific dissent from darwinism2 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism3 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism4 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
But creation (of life) can't actually now be duplicated and isn't subject to scientific methods. How can you reject something that is impossible?
God said that with him, all things were possible. Why are you calling god wrong? Who are you to tell god what he can or can't do?
But creation (of life) can't actually now be duplicated and isn't subject to scientific methods. How can you reject something that is impossible?
That's resurrection, Perry, not The Creation.
What did Isaac Newton, Renes Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, James Maxwell, and Michael Faraday all have in common?
They were all, to some degree, products of their environments, much like many of the brilliant scientists (who later came to the US to work) all, in theory, had to agree to support the nazi party.
Why is this significant? It means that if you believe in God and believe in science (in the sense of recognizing science as a noble pursuit of truth), then you are in good company. You are in the company of men like Newton, Boyle, and Galileo. Don't forget Albert Einstein either.
Wrong.
Einstein: " "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
Since you clearly haven't even bothered to spend five minutes googling facts on these men or what they beleive, I have trouble beleiving that you would understand it or accept it if you did. This argument is summarily dismissed and incorrect.
On the one hand you need to leave the possibility open for a creator, to compensate for the great chasm between human knowledge/ability - and the complexity of say - a single cell on the other, as you already stated. But, when you feel that you can explain something, just get rid of him again.
Why?
