This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Mountain Lion on 02 November 2013 - 18:11
Here Barbie! Here Barbie!
by Ruger1 on 02 November 2013 - 18:11
lol Lion,,Someone dislike many of your posts!,,Whats up with that?..Who does that?..Strange indeed,,
and now mine too..hehehe,,,
,,,
and now mine too..hehehe,,,
,,,by beetree on 02 November 2013 - 18:11
Well, it isn't me! I have my own faithful disliker(s). They'll get to mine soon enough. It is dinner time around here. Dislikers need to eat too!
by Mountain Lion on 02 November 2013 - 19:11
Hi Ruger. Someone doesn't like ME. LOL
But I like you and that is all that counts in my book.
But I like you and that is all that counts in my book.
by vk4gsd on 02 November 2013 - 21:11
screw evolution, this is intelligent design at it's best.
by beetree on 02 November 2013 - 22:11
And, now, I give you ... Slobbery!
LOL
LOL
by Shtal on 03 November 2013 - 00:11
Carlin wrote: The atheists would offer that my supernatural ontology is irrational, and I would agree.
This is where I disagree with you Carlin; most atheist are close minded people they believe what they wanted to believe sort of like “fantasy world” they created for themselves; that said, when subject relates to supernatural your “ontology” will be automatically categorize as irrational because what they believe is the world of strict naturalism in which clever of mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existences they considered as science, Period. But rational person knows that the laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. I already said this example many times if we replace our universe with a large jet engine and if we were asked by someone to explain it, shall we approach this by mentioning the person’s agency of its inventor (designer). Or shall we follow atheism, dismissing this person (agency) and explaining the jet engine by saying, it arose by naturally physical law and I would say it would be just absurd and it’s very obvious we need both levels of explanation in order to give complete description, and it is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts or competes with the agent/creator explanation, they complement one another. The laws of physics can/could explain how the jet engine works but not how it came to exist. Jet engine needed the intelligent and creative engineering work. The laws of physics could not actually produce the jet engine on their own; there also needed to be some material, subject to those laws that could be worked on it. God is actually the ground “base” of all explanation, in the sense that he is ultimate cause in the first place of a being the world for the laws of physics to describe. The law of physics says that you cannot create something from nothing. The key word: you are not supernatural; you are natural; meaning you are bound to the laws of this universe. Atheists look at the world around them and say you know I don’t see God who made it, therefore he doesn’t exist. They don’t want to understand that you don’t have to see the designer in order to believe it that he exists. “Always” The design demands the designer; and so it is interesting that atheist “evolutionists” argue against design using argument they designed. Bible says: Romans 1:20-22 For the invisible things for him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And my conclusion to you Carlin; I stand on God’s word, I don’t take man’s fallible interpretation out-there and how would I fit that with scripture “Bible”, this is the book of history that enables me to have ability to understand the world. We have to remember that we live in a fallen world of the result of our sin; I got to remember that, I can’t take man’s interpretation of nature and interpret scripture; I will take scripture to understand nature out-there. And one last thing there is no evidence for evolution at all, so why on earth would anyone compromise a perfectly good Bible which never been proving wrong with a dumb theory that was never been proving right. (Just leave it alone)…
This is where I disagree with you Carlin; most atheist are close minded people they believe what they wanted to believe sort of like “fantasy world” they created for themselves; that said, when subject relates to supernatural your “ontology” will be automatically categorize as irrational because what they believe is the world of strict naturalism in which clever of mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existences they considered as science, Period. But rational person knows that the laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. I already said this example many times if we replace our universe with a large jet engine and if we were asked by someone to explain it, shall we approach this by mentioning the person’s agency of its inventor (designer). Or shall we follow atheism, dismissing this person (agency) and explaining the jet engine by saying, it arose by naturally physical law and I would say it would be just absurd and it’s very obvious we need both levels of explanation in order to give complete description, and it is also obvious that the scientific explanation neither conflicts or competes with the agent/creator explanation, they complement one another. The laws of physics can/could explain how the jet engine works but not how it came to exist. Jet engine needed the intelligent and creative engineering work. The laws of physics could not actually produce the jet engine on their own; there also needed to be some material, subject to those laws that could be worked on it. God is actually the ground “base” of all explanation, in the sense that he is ultimate cause in the first place of a being the world for the laws of physics to describe. The law of physics says that you cannot create something from nothing. The key word: you are not supernatural; you are natural; meaning you are bound to the laws of this universe. Atheists look at the world around them and say you know I don’t see God who made it, therefore he doesn’t exist. They don’t want to understand that you don’t have to see the designer in order to believe it that he exists. “Always” The design demands the designer; and so it is interesting that atheist “evolutionists” argue against design using argument they designed. Bible says: Romans 1:20-22 For the invisible things for him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And my conclusion to you Carlin; I stand on God’s word, I don’t take man’s fallible interpretation out-there and how would I fit that with scripture “Bible”, this is the book of history that enables me to have ability to understand the world. We have to remember that we live in a fallen world of the result of our sin; I got to remember that, I can’t take man’s interpretation of nature and interpret scripture; I will take scripture to understand nature out-there. And one last thing there is no evidence for evolution at all, so why on earth would anyone compromise a perfectly good Bible which never been proving wrong with a dumb theory that was never been proving right. (Just leave it alone)…
by beetree on 03 November 2013 - 00:11
LOL@ poor ol' shtal...
oh goodness gracious. I hope it was a cut and paste.
oh goodness gracious. I hope it was a cut and paste.
by Shtal on 03 November 2013 - 00:11
beetree,
Why can I focus my mind to reply to Carlin; honestly it took me about 1 hour to write this correctly.
Why can I focus my mind to reply to Carlin; honestly it took me about 1 hour to write this correctly.
by beetree on 03 November 2013 - 00:11
Well, you can do that of course. It really comes down to efficiency. I don't think it will take him hours to respond to you is all. He seems to have covered it pretty well in the past, and you think your youngster, puppy views will change that? I dont' think so, I am still looking up every other philosopher he mentions, and I am not trying to convert a certain portion of dogdom to some kind of eternal flame.
But please I am not even going to think I can speak for .... Carlin! Fool ... fool, I am not!
But please I am not even going to think I can speak for .... Carlin! Fool ... fool, I am not!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top