iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2008, 1:31 pm
chever wrote:
Luther hated reason
Are you denying this?
Are you denying this?
I don't know enough about him to say either way. At Wal-Mart, for my exit interview, they managed to twist my words so that it sounded like a threat of some type. I wouldn't be surprised to find similar twisting being done on INTERNET sites devoted to doing the Twist.
LeKiwi
Veteran
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
10 Sep 2008, 1:33 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
LeKiwi wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Quote:
The Christian religion has had a historical (and, in some cases, continuing) problem with science.
According to who?No point trying to reason with this guy, parakeet. Your 'Argh' summed it up nicely!
Thanks. I just wish I weren't argumentative too.
I am too (well, I prefer 'debatable' - I like a good debate
), but even I gave up. Lol.
10 Sep 2008, 1:36 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2008, 1:37 pm
10 Sep 2008, 1:53 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2008, 2:08 pm
10 Sep 2008, 2:30 pm
10 Sep 2008, 2:35 pm
Sand wrote:
If God had problems with creating life, why should humans be more lucky?
Because we have the luxury of studying Gods mistakes and learning from them
10 Sep 2008, 2:43 pm
Haliphron wrote:
Sand wrote:
If God had problems with creating life, why should humans be more lucky?
Because we have the luxury of studying Gods mistakes and learning from them
No we don't. That assumes God makes mistakes, and a perfect being can never make mistakes. God is perfection, among other things.
10 Sep 2008, 2:51 pm
slowmutant wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
Sand wrote:
If God had problems with creating life, why should humans be more lucky?
Because we have the luxury of studying Gods mistakes and learning from them
No we don't. That assumes God makes mistakes, and a perfect being can never make mistakes. God is perfection, among other things.
The way God expects us to behave-according to the bible, often is in conflict with our impulses. I mean since God created pleasure, then is it fair to say if it feels good, do it? I mean, O wait! I forgot about Satan
. Afterall, he created sin and so when we feel the impulse to do something that the bible says we shouldnt its Him playing with our minds. 
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2008, 2:51 pm
10 Sep 2008, 3:33 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.
The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence
And this theory seems to be a lot to swallow, from what I gather from the web it seems to be made out of conjectures (without much evidence to be considered valid to support it) to justify a young universe. And if evidence is claimed, would it be unbiased or would it be interpreted in a way to fit a literal interpretation of a religious scripture written thousands of years ago? Just the latter is enough to make this "scientific" theory questionable, not to mention it doesn't seem to meet the criteria to pass the scientific method, and obviously biased, some of the reasons why the scientific community doesn't accept this and some would consider this as pseudoscience.
Was the universe a huge sphere of water in the beginning?
The milky way near the center of the universe?
I suppose creationists reject the expanding universe, even though strong evidence exists for this, but as it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible, it is obvious why the rejection, we get back to the similarities with the days of Galilei when helliocentrism wasn't accepted because of this.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2008, 4:14 pm
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.
The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence
Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence.
10 Sep 2008, 4:30 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence.
That is also true.
10 Sep 2008, 4:33 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.
The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence
Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence.
Why do you have to disprove pseudoscience?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
10 Sep 2008, 4:34 pm
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.
The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence
Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence.
That is also true.
To answer two parts of your post according to what I've read:
1) Was the universe a huge sphere of water in the beginning?
2) The milky way near the center of the universe?
1. That is particular to Humphrey's exegesis, but not necessary for his cosmology.
2. That was shown by the quantized redshifts, using the axiom that the universe has a center.
