|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Are you asking me why I believe that God exists? I dont think its possible to explain in one message why I believe because believing in God isnt something that happens overnight, at least not for me. It is a long spiritual journey. But I do believe it is based on the evidence around me, such as a strong sense of place within a cosmos that radiates the glory of God and displays a divine structure. So that boils down to a hunch, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So what if it takes faith to agree with ID, If it takes faith then it is not science. This is a science thread (as Percy pointed out up thread). If you need to invoke faith what does that tell you about the scientific validity of I.D. being under the aegis of the scientific method?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
No, you seem to be the one who is confused.
RAZD is asking for scientific evidence as he posted it in the science forum. You provided non-scientifc evidence i.e. faith. That was my point. Make sense? Edited by Larni, : Make sense?Snappy title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So, the answer to a question does not need to be explained in itself to be acceptable. Nor does it need to be simpler. No. What Taq seems to be saying is that initial conditions of the universe are not required to be known to understand how atoms and molecules interact. It's a bit like understanding ToE does not need an understanding of abiogenesis. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Basically.
Water is going to boil at 100C stp: we know that at that temperature the molecules break apart becuase the covalent and hydrogen bonds cannot be maintained. We do not need to know where the atoms ultimately originated from. Oh, and welcome to EvC!The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Covalent bonds breaking when water boils? Surely not. Well I thought they did. That's what I remember from school.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
D'oh!
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Perhaps you could tell us how they are different? It would be possible to decsribed the compression of the snow without making direct reference to it being a human foot. But I guess that would be asking 'what compressed the snow?' Rather than 'what made that foot print?' The second case we assume it is a footprint rather than anything else.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024