God vs. Science

quote:

---

I have no idea how God works.

---

Hold on a minute.You just told a story in which you very much claim to know how God works.You said that it was definitely God who helped you out in the water, but now you say you don't have any idea how God works.Why is it that you get to claim how God works when something good happens to you, but when something bad happens to other people in spite of their appeals to God, you suddenly claim complete ignorance know how God does anything?

quote:

---

I feel that I will only understand why things happen when I get to Heaven. However, I do know that all things work out for the better.

---

No, they most certainly do not.

quote:

---

For example, in my seventh grade year, my father moved away to Montana (I was living in Vancouver, Washington at the time) and my two best friends stabbed me in the back. I was depressed, and seriously considered suicide. How in the world would that work out for the better?

​

Well, now, I realize that through that expiriance, I learned how to choose good friends that would never stab me in the back. I learned to be more independant of my parents. I learned how God, even though He allows some things to happen, will always carry you through the hard times (just like that footsteps poem) to the other side, where you're a better person.

​

You can't shape metal without heating it up and hitting it.

---

Of course, many, many people in this world lead a life of starvation, oppression, disease, suffering and an early, often violent death, and you are trying to tell me that this is for the best?Spare me.Maybe you need to learn a little more about people who live a bit less rich than you do.

quote:

---

What good would looking at a diploma do?
A piece of paper means nothing.

---

A college diploma (from a accredited school) is more than a mere "piece of paper".It is an official document which states that the person who's name is on it has completed the requirements that this particular institution of higher education has set for the degree stated on the diploma.

quote:

---

It tells you nothing about the qualifications of a person, only that they have completed the requirements to obtain the diploma.

---

If the position being hired for requires a certain kind of degree, a diploma most certainly tells us something about the qualifications of a person.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Hi nator, I stated they completed the requirements to obtain the diploma.But I am glad you trust the system.
It seems like a lot of our people in education does also.My brother does not. He says only about ten percent of those appling for a teaching position in his county are qualified to teach.All have diplomas from accredited schools.Maybe my source is mistaken. He has only been doing it for 30 years.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

It seems like a lot of our people in education does also.

​

My brother does not. He says only about ten percent of those appling for a teaching position in his county are qualified to teach.

---

So, what is your brother's lofty position that he can pass judgement upon the qualification of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of teachers in his county?And, how did he go about evaluating all of these teachers, and how did he arrive at the 10% figure?

Hi nator, He the guy who hire and fire.The first 10 years he recommended who to hire and fire. Then he was given total responsibility.He has a test they have to pass for the subject they are interviewing for. Then he interviews each one and checks for people skills.Maybe he just has his goals set too high. He is a perfectionist.But his job is easy now. He has very little turn over. He keeps good teachers until they retire or die.He keeps records of all interviews and test results.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Which of course means nothing ever comes down the river, right?

​

Come on. Debris eventually floats down all rivers, particularly after storms or strong wind upstream. If the eddy you describe truly traps objects inescapable barring outside intervention, at least some of that debris should have still been swirling around where you were trapped. If not, then the debris was obviously carried away - by the very same current that eventually forced you back into the river.

​

5 days is not a long period of time.

---

Ah, so you're saying that if you observe something for a time and notice a constant for that time, you really can't extrapolate backwards and say that constant has been a constant for a long period of time?However, isn't that exactly what scientists do! They notice that carbon-14 has been decaying at x rate for ninety years, then it must have been decaying for the passed 200 million years, right?Or maybe how stalagtites grow at x rate for 150 years, it must have been growing at x rate for 500 million years.Coral grows at x rate for 200 years, so it must have grown at that rate for 400 million years.And of course nothing happened to change those rates in those 500,000,000 years, but something happened to cause the Deschutes River to have debris which wouldn't get caught on the edges of the river over it's 100-mile length, get caught at the bottom of the Sherars Falls.It seems that you're in direct contradiction to yourself, just like the formation of plants and rings (which I may discuss in a different thread).

quote:

---

The current you describe should have no problem pushing an 800 pound boat.

---

Yes, but the current was going what would be considered upstream until it met up with the main current of the same or slightly bigger power until it turned back into the eddy.

quote:

---

So you can't get out of the current but the wind is so strong it pushes you upstream.

---

Yes. The wind was moving against the water, so when I got the boat into the current, it was pushed much slower than the river, which allowed it to get sucked back into the eddy.

quote:

---

That would probably never be forthcoming. Since their concept is based on faith not evidence. To further complicate matters, they cannot understand why we can't see where they are coming from and why we need positive evidence.

---

I know you guys won't take this as real, and there'll probably be around 20 different comments to this, so just don't worry about it. If you want, I'll start a new thread. However, here it is:I feel that the grass is evidence. You and me are evidence. The earth and all the other planets are evidence. The whole universe, its nebulas, galaxies, quasars, are evidence for God. The fact that you are alive, breathing, and reading this message is evidence for God.

quote:

---

No, you don't know these things.

​

You believe them.

​

There's a difference.

---

Oh, just like you don't know evolution happened, you only believe them.

quote:

---

Why is it that you get to claim how God works when something good happens to you, but when something bad happens to other people in spite of their appeals to God, you suddenly claim complete ignorance know how God does anything?

---

How about this?I know how God works.I do not know why God does what He does.

quote:

---

It is an official document which states that the person who's name is on it has completed the requirements that this particular institution of higher education has set for the degree stated on the diploma.

---

A diploma can be forged.

Oh, look, he's caught an Evolutionist in a giant contradiction!...wait, no he hasn't. You observed the river for all of five days, genius, and every other river has debris flowing down it. Assuming that your river does not ever have debris because of 5 contiguous days of observation is idiotic. Radioactive decay is tied to the speed of light, among other things. You don't even realize what you're suggesting - if you change radioactive decay rates, the entire Universe as we observe it could not exist. If every stalagtite ever observed grows within the same growth rate, all over the world, and older layers look exactly the same as the layers we observe building up, by what mechanism would you propose they speed up or slow down in the past? Especially since stalagtite growth is tied to specific water flow - too much and the material is simply rinsed away. If all coral ever observed grows within a certain range, by what mechanism do you propose that it speeds up or slows down in the past? Especially when the growth of life forms is limited to how fast cells can replicate. And if they grow too fast, they use up all of their food or all of the oxygen in the area, stopping all growth entirely - it happens today with algea, causing massive "dead zones" where there is no oxygen left in the water for fish to breathe. We can make predictions based on increased radioactive decay, the conditions necessary for increased stalagtite growth, etc. Those predictions are not borne out by the observable evidence.It is extremely unlikely that any specific location along a river will be completely absent debris for an entire year. Your survival was due to normal river currents, nothing more. You choose to believe otherwise becasue it makes you feel better, not out of objective evidence. If you're really going to rehash the idiotic idea that tree ring formation was faster in the past, be my guest - open the thread. But I'll warn you - we've been over that PRATT a few times before, and it won't go well for you.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hello ICANT,
So would you have us appeal to the anecdotal authority figure of your brother in deciding whether a person is qualified to teach?
Diplomas and other qualifications exist so that prospective employers can get an idea of the abilities of applicants without having to conduct empirical aptitude tests which would be too time consuming and expensive to carry out. If you don't trust the piece off paper, you can always contact the exam board to check it's authenticity.
A diploma like the one in the example is not a piece of paper that says "This person is completely suited to the job.". It says something more like "This person has undergone a known amount of relevant training and has demonstrated skills equal to the standards of required in order to gain this qualification. They are thus more suited to the job than someone who has not gained said qualification.".
If you have a better system, please share it with us. Perhaps we might ask your brother.

---

Mutate and Survive

I gather you don't have a diploma.Bitter?

You mention the word evidence five times without actually providing any.