Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…8889919394…232

Comments

  • #2702
    Chikablam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 161 ✭✭Chikablam


    If god created us, why do we have that little dip in our upper lip?
    Why an appendix?
    Why would we be so inefficient and prone to breakage?


  • #2703
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Quite a man, humble too.
    That's what my wife says too!!!:)
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    If you had joined the priesthood you would have made bishop in no time, then who know?
    Ministry and how the Episcopal Churches govern themselves doesn't interest me.
    The fact that I was top of my class is not something I'm particularly proud of ... but its also not something I'm ashamed of either.
    In the overall scheme of things it matters little where I came in the pecking order in University ... it certainly won't matter when I stand before Jesus Christ ... but I was trying to answer your question.

    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    So when did you notice that people stopped hanging on to your every word and headed in the opposite direction?
    When I joined the Boards ... and a few other discussion forums ... was when I first encountered disrespect for my views.


  • #2704
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lmaopml wrote: »
    If you think he is a troll why the effort to argue with him at all? It's amazing that people have actually spent ten odd years arguing with somebody they think is a troll no?
    They know that I'm not a troll because I speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit ... and they can recognise that this is the case.


  • #2705
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Stop lying. You have no university level education in biology.
    As it so happens, I do ...
    ... but, for the sake of arguent, lets say I don't ... then that fact that I beat the pants of you guys on every issue that you raise ... makes the case for Creationism even more compelling!!!;)


  • #2706
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    dlofnep wrote: »
    J C is not trolling. They are legitimately insane.

    If one believes this to be true, then why feel the urge to argue at all? Other than to point out a decade old thread and it's contributors as some kind of delusional, or at least obsessed with each other in some ways?

    I don't get that, and never will on this thread. It seems like a massive thank seeking fest tbh. My knowledge is bigger than yours kinda stuff...a reflex of brain power, in a rather sad way.


    'I don't want to argue with you because I consider you insane or at least misled, but I will anyway, because it's rather fun, and I like ten odd years of this fun....mwa ha ha..' because it serves a purpose of some sort to do so?

    I only dip in and out of this thread as I suspect most do anyway.

    I feel sorry for JC sometimes because I think he is a 'person' at the end of the day behind the keyboard, and very many seem to think he/she is or at least build him up to be a serious threat to their powers of thought and public education - which quite frankly he is not - without the ridicule attached. Obviously, if the thread is ten years old and everybody disagrees it must tell it's own tale?


  • Advertisement
  • #2707
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Chikablam wrote: »
    If god created us, why do we have that little dip in our upper lip?
    ... I guess that God thought that it looked nice.
    What is the Evolutionist explantion for it?
    Chikablam wrote: »
    Why an appendix?
    Why would we be so inefficient and prone to breakage?
    The Appendix has a critical role in neo-natal gut flora establishment and maintenance thereby helping to reduce neo-natal Dysentery.


  • #2708
    Chikablam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 161 ✭✭Chikablam


    J C wrote: »
    ... I guess that God thought that it looked nice.
    What is the Evolutionist explantion for it?

    The Appendix has a critical role in neo-natal gut flora establishment and maintenance thereby helping to reduce neo-natal Dysentery.

    There was a time when it helped keep our noses wet, to help us smell better. Dogs, cats, and a lot of animals still have them
    Fair enough about the appendix, but still, why would we be so likely to die?
    It's a bit different now, but think of a few hundred years ago, a simple cut could kill you.
    Surely no higher being would design us with such obvious flaws?


  • #2709
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lmaopml wrote: »
    I feel sorry for JC sometimes because I think he is a 'person' at the end of the day behind the keyboard, and very many seem to think he/she is or at least build him up to be a serious threat to their powers of thought and public education - which quite frankly he is not - without the ridicule attached. Obviously, if the thread is ten years old and everybody disagrees it must tell it's own tale?
    The 'origins' question is a very important one ... and even though many Christians don't seem to think so ... Atheists and Creationists know that it is one of the most fundamentally important issues facing all Human Beings.

    Very different outcomes flow from whether you believe yourself to be a product of blind chance and natural selection ... or the Special Creation of an omnipotent God.


  • #2710
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Chikablam wrote: »
    There was a time when it helped keep our noses wet, to help us smell better. Dogs, cats, and a lot of animals still have them
    How does a depression in your upper lip keep your nose wet ... and who would want a wet nose anyway?
    Were not cats or dogs.

    Chikablam wrote: »
    Fair enough about the appendix, but still, why would we be so likely to die?
    It's a bit different now, but think of a few hundred years ago, a simple cut could kill you.
    Surely no higher being would design us with such obvious flaws?
    We can still die from a simple cut, if it gets infected with a sufficiently virulent disease.
    Death and disease entered a perfect world at the Fall ... and these 'flaws' arose since that time.


  • #2711
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What I am saying is that it is evident that most of the leading creationists who argue against Evolution do not actually have any formal education in biology. Their arguments are null and void, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution by natural selection states.

    Take the 'Croco-duck' for example. Anyone who actually understood what the theory of evolution states knows that that's not how evolution works, and that no rational biologist would ever put further such an idea.
    The 'Croco-duck' is a bit of fun which is also promoted by leading Evolutionists with the Crocoduck Awards.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Then you have the likes of Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind, the leading figures in Creationism, who systematically lie to their audience and know they are doing so. They quote-mine, taking pieces of text out of context - only to reveal that the articles they quote actually disagree with their conclusions when revealed in full. The reservoir effect on carbon dating for example is one example of this.
    Kent Hovind isn't a Creation Scientist ... as for so-called 'quote mining' ... all quotes that I have seen are fairly presented ... its just the fact that they completely undermine Evolution ... in the words of Evolutionists themselves ... that cause Evolutionists to get 'up-tight' about these quotes!!

    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, it doesn't. People are capable of being great thinkers without university education - But if you're going to try argue against the leading biologists on the planet, you had better got your science right beforehand. The problem is however that every single creationist (including you), have not got their science right beforehand.
    I have the science correct allright ... its just that the science of evolution doesn't add up.
    If the only problem was that Creationists got the science wrong ... this could easily be addressed by presenting the correct evidence ... but it simply doesn't exist ... and that is why it's never been presented.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    I have no idea what an Evolutionist is. You wouldn't call someone who accepts the theory of gravity as a Gravitationalist, now would you? I will say one thing - you absolutely did not pursue a degree in biology or evolutionary biology in University.
    There is no controversy over gravity ... but if there was, because I accept the existence of Gravity, you can call me a Gravitationalist, if you wish.


  • Advertisement
  • #2712
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Sure you are ;)
    What's the big deal about University education and why is there a working hypothesis amongst the Evolutionists on this thread, that all Creationists have barely completed primary school and/or are insane?

    Do you think that university education completely removes the critical thinking faculties of its recipients to the point where everyone is incapable of developing alternative ideas about how life arose - other than by a series of fortuituous mistakes?

    I went in to University as an Evolutionist ... and when I qualified, I was still one ... but nothing happened during my University education to make me so attached to Evolution that I was prepared to 'go down with the ship' ... when I later saw that the evidence simply wasn't stacking up for the Evolution hypothesis.


  • #2713
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    But if there had been a global flood then the fossil record would indeed indicate that crocodiles and dinosaurs did appear to co-exist and a good explanation for that, if it were the case, would be a global flood.
    Crocodiles and Dinosuar fossils are indeed found together ... and it is accepted by Evolutionists that Crocodiles have been around since the so-called 'age of the dinosurs'.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    You see, all the dead bodies would be mixed together and scattered across the globe.
    There are indeed billions of fossilised dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Unfortunately for creationists, it is partly because the fossil record fails to show human remains that were laid down at the same time and place as dinosaurs were laid that the global flood theory doesn't 'hold water'.
    Human artifacts are found in supposed hundred million year old rocks ... and when they're found they're simply classified as 'Out-Of-Place Artifacts' or OOPArts.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact

    It's priceless to see an old age Geologist confronted by one of these items ... the cognitive dissonace is so great that they are often literally speechless. I have had some very interesting non-conversations over coffee with 'long agers' when these things have been found!!!:eek:
    Masteroid wrote: »
    You would love for dinosaurs remains to be found alongside human remains. It will never happen though because there was never a global flood such as that depicted by you and the bible.;)
    Ah ... but they are found together ... but that's about it as far as it ever goes.
    This video uses Evolutionist time scales ... but it provides some very interesting insights ... including the physical evidence for the sophisticated world-wide Ante-diluvian civilisation that existed between Creation and the Flood ... enjoy


  • #2714
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    What's the big deal about University education and why is there a working hypothesis amongst the Evolutionists on this thread, that all Creationists have barely completed primary school and/or are insane?

    What I am saying is that it is evident that most of the leading creationists who argue against Evolution do not actually have any formal education in biology. Their arguments are null and void, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution by natural selection states.

    Take the 'Croco-duck' for example. Anyone who actually understood what the theory of evolution states knows that that's not how evolution works, and that no rational biologist would ever put further such an idea.

    Then you have the likes of Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind, the leading figures in Creationism, who systematically lie to their audience and know they are doing so. They quote-mine, taking pieces of text out of context - only to reveal that the articles they quote actually disagree with their conclusions when revealed in full. The reservoir effect on carbon dating for example is one example of this.
    J C wrote: »
    Do you think that university education completely removes the critical thinking faculties of its recipients to the point where everyone is incapable of developing alternative ideas about how life arose - other than by a series of fortuituous mistakes?

    No, it doesn't. People are capable of being great thinkers without university education - But if you're going to try argue against the leading biologists on the planet, you had better got your science right beforehand. The problem is however that every single creationist (including you), have not got their science right beforehand.
    J C wrote: »
    I went in to University as an Evolutionist ... and when I qualified, I was still one ... but nothing happened during my University education to make me so attached to Evolution that I was prepared to 'go down with the ship' ... when I later saw that the evidence simply wasn't stacking up for the Evolution hypothesis.

    I have no idea what an Evolutionist is. You wouldn't call someone who accepts the theory of gravity as a Gravitationalist, now would you? I will say one thing - you absolutely did not pursue a degree in biology or evolutionary biology in University.


  • #2715
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,915 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Chikablam wrote: »
    If god created us, why do we have that little dip in our upper lip?
    Why an appendix?
    Why would we be so inefficient and prone to breakage?

    Because God also had them, and he created man in His own image. So maybe God evolved?


  • #2716
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    Because God also had them, and he created man in His own image. So maybe God evolved?
    God is perfect ... and He created all life perfect ... but it has gone into decline, and has become imperfect as a result of increasing entropy since The Fall.


  • #2717
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    The 'Croco-duck' is a bit of fun which is also promoted by leading Evolutionists with the Crocoduck Awards.

    It's promoted in jest. It was actually used by leading Creationists as a legitimate argument against Evolution.
    J C wrote: »
    Kent Hovind isn't a Creation Scientist ...

    Agreed, because there is no such thing as a Creation Scientist. There are scientists, and there are creationists.
    J C wrote: »
    as for so-called 'quote mining' ... all quotes that I have seen are fairly presented ...

    No, they are not fairly presented. The issue is covered in great depth over on Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html

    Honesty is not a Creationist virtue.
    J C wrote: »
    I have the science correct allright ... its just that the science of evolution doesn't add up.

    No, you don't. You're not a scientist. Nor do you have any education, even at a formal level about biology.
    J C wrote: »
    There is no controversy over gravity ... but if there was, because I accept the existence of Gravity, you can call me a Gravitationalist, if you wish.

    There is no controversy over evolution. It is an accepted fact by the science community, and by anyone with a rational brain. It's only controversial by uneducated creationists, who are upset by reality.


  • #2718
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's promoted in jest. It was actually used by leading Creationists as a legitimate argument against Evolution.
    Like I have said it's a bit of fun ... and no Creation Scientist that I know has ever used it as a serious argument for anything!!!:)

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Agreed, because there is no such thing as a Creation Scientist. There are scientists, and there are creationists.
    ... there are also Conventionally qualified scientists who study the scientific evidence for Creation and its polar opposite, Evolution ... and they are correctly called Creation Scientists. Evolutionists don't have a monopoly on the use of the scientific method!!

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Honesty is not a Creationist virtue.
    You can't make sweeping remarks like that ... all Creationists that I personally know, are honest people of the highest integrity.
    How would you feel if I said that honesty isn't an Atheist virtue ?
    I wouldn't do so, because it wouldn't be true ... no more than your statement about Creationists.:(
    Prejudicial generalisations about groups of people on the basis of their faith beliefs are almost invariably false.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, you don't. You're not a scientist. Nor do you have any education, even at a formal level about biology.
    We'll have to agree to differ on that.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is no controversy over evolution. It is an accepted fact by the science community, and by anyone with a rational brain. It's only controversial by uneducated creationists, who are upset by reality.
    Of course there is controversy over evolution ... and the thousands of posts on this thread alone, proves that there is.
    You guys say that Evolution is a fact ... yet ye have never come up with even one unambiguous example of the billions of increases in Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information that would have been required if the transition from Pondkind to Mankind ever occurred.
    ... and nothing in our everyday experience would indicate that random changes to complex functional specified systems, including living systems, will improve them ... indeed such random changes are observed to invariably degrade such systems.


  • #2719
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    The point I was making is that the term 'Dinosaur' encompasses a whole 'grab-bag' of different creatures ... some of which were warm-blooded mammals ... like the Triceratops ... which was an extinct type of Rhinocerous.:D

    J C, before now I thought that maybe you could be just trolling, but this comments shows that you literally are stupid enough to stick your hand into an active meat grinder, if a sign told you to do so.
    J C wrote: »
    God is perfect ... and He created all life perfect ... but it has gone into decline, and has become imperfect as a result of increasing entropy since The Fall.

    How do you explain the fact that the passage we use to breathe is the same we use to ingest food, giving significant risk of us choking while eating? And this is not something you can hand-wave away by invoking "entropy".

    Oh, and your god breaks every rule of physics, never mind the laws of thermodynamics the ones you keep failing to show evolution "breaking". You can either have reality or god, choose.


  • #2720
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Stop lying. You have no university level education in biology.

    If he went to Bob Jones University he probably has. However as BJU has never produced a serious scholar in any religious field (the field in which that particular building is supposed to have an authority), never mind biology, most sensible people laugh derisively at people who advertise that they have a degree from BJU.


  • #2721
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    How do you explain the fact that the passage we use to breathe is the same we use to ingest food, giving significant risk of us choking while eating? And this is not something you can hand-wave away by invoking "entropy".
    Economy of design and design trade-offs ... food blockages of a separate oesophagus without the choking reflex and air from the lungs and trachea to cough up oversize food items that are swallowed, could be at least as big a problem as choking in a fallen world.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Oh, and your god breaks every rule of physics, never mind the laws of thermodynamics the ones you keep failing to show evolution "breaking". You can either have reality or god, choose.
    I can have reality and God ... indeed without God I won't have a full and adequate explanation of reality.

    As the Creator of time and space, God is logically transcendent of time and space (and therefore the laws of the universe) ... but Evolution has no such logical basis ... as it isn't transcendent ... and thus must obey the known laws of the Universe ... and it therefore can't logically produce and evolve the CFSI found in living processes in living organisms.
    Evolution therefore isn't fit for purpose (if its purpose is to explain how life arose/developed on this planet) ... but Creation is logically consistent and sufficient to explain the origins of life.


  • Advertisement
  • #2722
    Plowman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • #2723
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    lmaopml wrote: »
    If you think he is a troll why the effort to argue with him at all? It's amazing that people have actually spent ten odd years arguing with somebody they think is a troll no?

    Because J C must not have the last word on what is truth.


  • #2724
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote:
    ]The point I was making is that the term 'Dinosaur' encompasses a whole 'grab-bag' of different creatures ... some of which were warm-blooded mammals ... like the Triceratops ... which was an extinct type of Rhinocerous.biggrin.png

    So, J C, from which branch of 'evolutionary science' are you being supported in this conclusion?


  • #2725
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    lmaopml wrote: »
    If one believes this to be true, then why feel the urge to argue at all? Other than to point out a decade old thread and it's contributors as some kind of delusional, or at least obsessed with each other in some ways?

    I don't get that, and never will on this thread. It seems like a massive thank seeking fest tbh. My knowledge is bigger than yours kinda stuff...a reflex of brain power, in a rather sad way.


    'I don't want to argue with you because I consider you insane or at least misled, but I will anyway, because it's rather fun, and I like ten odd years of this fun....mwa ha ha..' because it serves a purpose of some sort to do so?

    I only dip in and out of this thread as I suspect most do anyway.

    I feel sorry for JC sometimes because I think he is a 'person' at the end of the day behind the keyboard, and very many seem to think he/she is or at least build him up to be a serious threat to their powers of thought and public education - which quite frankly he is not - without the ridicule attached. Obviously, if the thread is ten years old and everybody disagrees it must tell it's own tale?

    And do you feel sorry for 0898 TAROT TAROT TAROT because most of the population can't help dismissing it as a scam?

    Do you realise that this thread is an advertising hoarding to J C? As long as J C is here then there needs to be someone else here disagreeing with him.

    Evil grows where good men do nothing.

    And I wonder, lmoapml, what was it the compelled you to post that defence of the 'live and let live' adage?

    And while you are here, would you like to say something about The Bible, Creationism and Prophecy?


  • #2726
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    I can have reality and God ... indeed without God I won't have a full and adequate explanation of reality.

    The thing is, your 'adequate explanation of reality' does not explain 'God'.

    If you have an adequate explanation of reality that does not explain God then God cannot be part of any adequate explanation of reality.

    Do you see?


  • #2727
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    ... if it wasn't a spontaneous process (you have confirmed that the spontaneous production of an eye is impossible) ... then the only known alternative is an intelligently directed one.

    I think that what doctoremma actually 'confirmed' was that spontaneous events led to the evolution of the eye.

    And why is a hawk's eyesight better than yours?

    And please don't suggest that there are no advantages to humans in having 'hawk-eyes'. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Gallileo to popularise the telescope.

    And why is our hearing second-rate when compared to a dog?

    You know, four-legs are better than two when it comes to running. Who's bright idea was it to make us stand up?

    Dogs are good at smelling too. And sharks have lateral sensors that would come in really useful to a violent animal with imperialistic tendencies - why did God not give them to us too? Did He favour sharks, dogs and hawks over humans when He settled on His architecture of anatomies?

    Our blood is hundreds of times more receptive to CO2 than oxygen - was God having a laugh?

    Nice one God, you designed us so that our own breath will kill us.

    And what is 'free-will' then but a limitation of potential? We are like goldfish in a bowl being allowed to do whatever we want.

    Why would a just, merciful and loving God create us that way?

    If God was willing to go to the trouble of cleansing Mary's mother's womb of sin in preperation for the birth of Mary whom would be made pregnant by God Himself to atone for sin then why couldn't He have gone the whole hog and cleansed all mothers of sin?

    Oh, and what can you categorically say about the heart of a triceratops?


  • #2728
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Because J C must not have the last word on what is truth.
    I don't ... God has the last word on what is truth.
    ... and it is certain that, whatever the reason was, Evolution objectively wasn't the reason for the genetic diversity we observe in the biosphere.:)


  • #2729
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    And do you feel sorry for 0898 TAROT TAROT TAROT because most of the population can't help dismissing it as a scam?
    Tarot has just about as much evidence for its validity as evolution from Pondkind to Mankind (which is none) ... so they have quite a lot in common actually.
    Indeed the explosion of interest in the occult has coincided with the explosion in the belief in Evolution ... and the decline in Christianity.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Do you realise that this thread is an advertising hoarding to J C? As long as J C is here then there needs to be someone else here disagreeing with him.
    Fair enough ... but if I were ye I'd try and come up with a better argument than querying my University qualifications and saying that 'Evolutionists believe Evolution be a fact'.:)
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Evil grows where good men do nothing.
    If proclaiming the Word of God ... and the reality established by science on our origins is 'evil' ... then I'm guilty.

    Isaiah 5:20
    New International Version (NIV)

    20 Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.
    Masteroid wrote: »

    And I wonder, lmoapml, what was it the compelled you to post that defence of the 'live and let live' adage?
    'Live and let live' is certainly a good way to live your life ... Creationists practice this virtue ... the pseudo-liberal Evolutionists on this thread don't even 'pay lip-service' to it!!!


  • #2730
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    If proclaiming the Word of God ... and the reality established by science on our origins is 'evil' ... then I'm guilty.

    Sounds about right. Didn't your God spend pretty much the first half of the bible killing and maiming anything with a heartbeat? What a loving God! I really feel his love!


  • Advertisement
  • #2731
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    I can have reality and God ... indeed without God I won't have a full and adequate explanation of reality.

    god breaks physics. You can either have reality or god, not both. Choose.


Advertisement