Thanks for the encouragement. I will consider it. If and/or when something comes out, I'll let you know. Peace.
Yes. When it is discovered what it is (ie. nothing, imagination) it may begin to shift in response to the percievers attitudes, primarily attitudes about S/self. Attitudes about Self are primarily what the perciever is seeing (appearing externally). With a higher Self-esteem, one may see a better world...until all one sees is the World of Go(o)d. When one sees the World of Go(o)d, one is knowing Self as Self is...as Self was created. P.S. The Knower does not "see". Seeing is alien to what knows all. Seeing is an aspect of believing. The believer does not know (anything). No. It's "existence" and observation are simultaneous. If there were no observer, it would be "nothing". Even while it is observed, it remains "nothing". All of time/mass. Once could argue that mass is gravitationally trapped light. I mainly say that time/mass are beliefs that are observed as they are manifested. To comprehend this, one must credit his mind with more power than is understood by the common man. And one must also open his mind to the possibility that there are not many minds, but one mind responsible for what is observed.
Not my phrase, dumbass. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ Not rare for this forum. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2720634#post2720634 What, you thought I just decided to post this thread out of the blue? LOL
1) The vast majority of biologists don't accept this distinction between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" invented by creation scientists. 2) "I concede your point that evolution could occur in an open system, however, any laboratory exercise to obtain quantitative data supporting the thesis would be occuring on a closed system." I fail to see the validity of this assumption. Plenty of experiments take place in open systems. Furthermore, if evolution did take place in a closed system, that would be iron-clad proof that no net decrease in entropy was taking place as a result of evolution. Again, there is no violation of the second law. 3) You keep referring to solar energy as "random". It is highly directional, high-order energy. It can be directly converted to electricity with little waste. Creation scientists (scientists devoted to a literal interpretation of Genesis) turn a blind eye to all contradicting evidence. They've done this not only with origins, they've done it with evolution, which is entirely post-origins. Biological evolution is separate from abiogenesis, yet both are rejected because they contradict the account in Genesis. That is not a scientific viewpoint, that is a dogmatic religious viewpoint.
I believe - but I fail to understand why anyone would pin their creation science to a literally 6 days of 24 current hours. Do creation scientists really do that? The bible was most likely written in what hebrew -- would not we want to figure out what the meaning of the original hebrew is? I could not care less what the king james version says - if we can figure out what the source says. But even in the King James version - The bible says in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. It does not say how long the heavens and the earth existed. The day was not started until he created light and divided the light from the darkness. I see no reason to think that first day was 24 hours.
hmmmmm, ... "creation science" MOST CERTAINLY IS YOUR TERMINOLOGY (so is "DENIER") don't make me mad ... I'll make you cry, or at least force you to review your world view
Yes, they do. The heavens to the ancient Hebrews were a solid canopy that separated "the waters above" (rain) from "the waters below". The heavens didn't get filled with the sun, the moon, and the stars until the fourth day (after photosynthetic plants were made btw). So basically 99.9999999999999999% of the universe was made in one day, almost as an afterthought. The Hebrews had no clue that stars were more than pretty lights in the sky so it was easy to treat them as an afterthought.
"Creation science" is not my invention, it was invented by those who proudly call themselves "creation scientists". And I've never said the d-word in this website. Did you forget to take your meds?
hey jem i found another religious bible is literal nutcase who uses slightly more convoluted thinking than you do. enjoy: http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress...nt-torah-doubted-treated-lightly-quaint-fair/
no I did not forget ... I have a guinness popped ... "creation science" is a slander to anyone who dares to admit that they will never fully know (and those who dare to challenge those who claim to ... ) you see, your belief system requires just as little discernment as that which you ridicule. At least that which you ridicule has redemptive value