i have a friend, paddy (rc - yeah i know, why would a dub have a satan worshiping friend).
she is so kind and caring.
amazingly she claims that when she lights a candle and prays for something it works.. maybe this is just another boring "does prayer work" question - but: .
Mrs Kwin claims that when she lights a candle beside the cutting board when she's chopping onions that her eyes don't burn. I don't believe it, and it doesn't work for me, she does believe it, and it works for her.
Doesn't work for me either, which can be problematic when you're cutting up three onions for a soup. Apparently what really works is cutting the onions in a bowl of water, you just have to be careful.
i was raised as a dub, and i suppose when i was quite young i found some of the bible stories interesting.
however, the older i got the more boring the bible seemed.
obviously, it had a lot to do with repetition.
Some parts are boring, others are not, like Sirach, wherein he encourages people to induce vomiting if they eat too much. Now that's interesting, plus it shows the Hellenistic influence on, coincidentally, Jewish though during the Hellenistic period.
for at least 5 years my health insurance premiums have been going up and up and up.... .
i got an email from work that said that the health insurance costs for the company turned out to be less than they expected, so this month all employees will not have to pay any premiums.
basically we are getting one month free which comes out to be an 8.3% reduction in the costs!.
Premiums?!?!?!
Well, we do still have to pay $54/month premium to the government and I've got a $200/year health plan for perscrptions, dentist, and other things.
if jesus is god then mary is the mother of god so the roman catholics are correct
True, a docetic view would mean that God didn't die. Can God die? Hey! No wonder I scored much higher as a muslim than a catholic in that religion quiz.
Well, in a sense the docetists would be right if monphysitism was true, but diphysitism was expressed in early Christianity and the epistles of Paul, but not fully formulated until the Council of Chalcedon.
In the incarnation, the second person of the Holy Trinity took flesh, yet the Godhead did not cease to exist, instead there were two natures bound by the hypostatic union.
if jesus is god then mary is the mother of god so the roman catholics are correct
The Orthodox accept the first seven ecumenical councils too, both Nicaea I, which affirmed the belief that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and Ephesus that condemned the Nestorian heresy and proclaimed the Blessed Virgin the Deipara or Theotokos.
Mind you there are other Orthodox, such as the Oriental Orthodox, who reject the Chalcedonian view of Christianity, but they are considered heretics by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a30439-2004dec27.html.
They've been selling them in Vancouver at the Benz dealership on Broadway for over a year. If you want to buy one, be warned that they're on backorder b/c they're so popular.
I wouldn't mind on myself; I'm 6 foot 2, so if Danny Bloem is right, then it'll be fine to drive.
hurricane katrina is heading for new orleans, la, and will hit it by this afternoon.
it is the largest hurricane known in history.
the entire storm range covers more than 50% of the gulf of mexico.
We object to human wars, and in particular to Christians participating in war. The reason is that Christians should not kill, even if the war seems justifiedBut Christians are allowed to kill for legitimate reasons (such as the security of the state). Look at Jewish translations of the Tanakh: it's "You shall not murder" not "You shall not kill"; a slight nuance not captured in many translations.
"God does not love our suffering. He does not want us to suffer, but he will not normally interfere with the laws of nature which he authored. Jesus lived, suffered and died by these rules -- the same ones by which we live and suffer. Jesus' unmerited suffering and death show that God will not take away our freedom to protect the innocent from the evil. He created us free, and put us in charge of his creation. We must choose between good and evil, and we must answer at the end of our lives for what we have done with our freedom. Jesus' resurrection reveals that reward and punishment will be meted out by God not now, but in the life to come. All accounts will be settled then. God will reward whatever good we have done or whatever evil we have endured. The mystery of suffering will not be resolved in this life, and we cannot ultimately hope to account for it now. " -- +Bishop Raymundo J. Peña
wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
of course first year biology gets into some biochemistry and molecular biology. so what's your bleeding point already? i wanted to see where you got your little twee observation from.what does it show? that chemical systems self assemble and replicate. great, thanks for helping me out. i assume you brought this up in favor of abiogenesis, since you failed to actually say anything regarding what you posted actually meant.
You're the one who wanted me to cite that phosopholipids self-assemble into vesicles out of your disbelief. I really didn't have any point.
and how is "popularized science" mine? and why would it never be good to learn from it? grasping at straws are we? without textbooks, i would take dawkins over the pope any day. at least he's honest.
I wouldn't take either, I'd go to the source and work from there if I truly wanted to know things.
Please, I don't have the time to wade through all your posts. Can you prove it or not?So Tetra, a being comes up to you and says it's God. How do you prove that it is God?i already answered this question a couple of weeks ago, and a few other times since coming to the board. i don't feel like typing it again. you can go look through my post history.
wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
:::: What I have said is that life (as in a cell, the simplest unit of life) cannot come about by chanceI.e., a cell cannot come about by chance. Now, if you actually meant to say that a cell cannot come about through a sequence of chance steps, that would be another kettle of fish. But I'm not a mind reader.
By simply saying that life cannot come to be by chance means that life cannot come into being by any means of chance including "one fell swoop" or "a sequence of chance steps." It's rather simple.
Upon which you've failed actually to comment.
I know plenty about ID, having read many books pro and con, and having followed it since the 1991 publication by Phillip Johnson of Darwin on Trial, which kicked the whole thing off. You've already clearly stated that all you've "heard about ID is that life is irreducibly complex and it couldn't have come about by chance." Sounds to me like you haven't done any homework, but have only been chugging along on hearsay. If your statement was, well (What's the right word? Hypobole as opposed to hyperbole? Well, you get the idea.), highly understated, then you need to learn to communicate clearly.
Well, I don't spend much time on it at all as in the grand scheme of things, there are more important things to waste my time on. In all reality, I could indeed study for hours and hours over popularized books like Dawkins. But then, I would never really *know* anything indepth, although I may be able to make it appear that way. I take exception to the naturalists smug, smegheaded attitude. In all seriousness, if you all had a lot more tact and indifference, I might actually agree with you. You see, when you get someone like me who's pissed off all the time and sees extremely rude and biased attitudes beating down on people who can't defend themselves, that makes me even more pissed. When I see people who are so blinded by their dogmatic acceptance of one way of looking at things as absolute truth, I feel the need to step in. I know that for tetra, at least, biology has become his ground in reality by which he explains life. This leads him to dogmatically accept Darwinism and attack and ridicule those who don't accept his dogmatic view of the truth.
: Second, actually, I'm trying to argue from agnosticism.
Knock me over with a feather!
It would have to be a rather large feather (perhaps one from a goose, as they're large and relatively sturdy), but, if got drunk enough, then fine.
Um, no. Science never proves anything, and all scientists worth their salt admit this. Science only comes up with explanations that have varying degrees of probability, ranging from nearly zero to nearly certain. Scientists who argue against the precepts of ID mainly argue that its claims are simply not science, or that specific arguments made by ID claimants are wrong for very specific reasons. Of course, if you'd do your homework rather than relying on hearsay, you'd know this.
We may have trouble with semantics, but science has proven lots of stuff. An hypothesis comes forward, and it gets proven (providing that it can be). Of course, this is not expandable readily to the larger ideas, but, yes, science has proven things in the past, like if you mix an acid and a base, you'll get salt and water. You may say this is fact, but someone had to prove (demonstrate) it at one time.
Better men than you or me have tried, and failed.
You're completely right. I am a fool. I'm such an idiot that I am not worthy of life. And I'm not even being sarcastic.
: Science today says that we cannot create life or even reproduce the mechanisms that supposedly created life.
Correction: can't do it as of today. A century and change ago, "science said we couldn't fly because no one could do it." Your claim is demonstrably silly.
That's what I said, unless you don't have a proper command of the English language (for all I know, it could be your second) for I said, "science today."
wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.
" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
awesome classicist, thanks for coming out. pretty cool how you can type out stuff from your text books. BTW, did i not say i was studying computational biology? so how does that make me a fullblown biochemist? please don't do this to yourself, it's embarassing. perhaps you should drop the classics and get into science? it seems you enjoy it.
I would suspect that you should know something that I picked up in first year biology, unless you haven't gone through first year biology and instead rely on Dawkins for all your popularized science, which is never good to learn from.
so then you are in favour of aliens? ; it does not matter if you never brought god into your arguments. ; your arguments had god in them. ; ID is about god, in case you had not noticed. ; ID is about origins.
you ignore the point that it is unparsimonious to introduce the possible concept of a designer for origins as probablity is not on the side of that explanation. ; you ignore the fact that the computational nature of the universe and biological systems, would make any designer not a designer at all, but a programmer. ; this would make the deist's god, the one you advocate with support of ID, even smaller and lazier than he already was.
Personally, I think it is fallacious to rely on probability to determine the veracity of historical events. Perhaps it's more nuanced than that.
You ask me to prove that God exists; I say that it is not possible to do so except through knowledge by faith. There is no other way to prove the existence of God unless you wish to provide another, perhaps more rational model by which we can prove or disprove the existence of God.
So Tetra, a being comes up to you and says it's God. How do you prove that it is God?
