Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Evidence
- rjwatts1 wrote:
>No, but it /is/ an example of a desire, of which I make /no/ secret, to
> I gather then that this post is an example of your secret desire to
> be a liberal?
deny the last word to anyone who accuses me of charlatanry, so long as
any doubt might possibly remain in anyone's mind that the other person's
accusations are absurd and have it backwards.
>No, but you clearly do.
>> Yes, but you ought to have known that I would never explain it /in
>> evolutionary terms/. That is what you must have been demanding.
>> rejection of the explanation that I /did/ offer makes zero sense
>> otherwise. Did you really think that I was going to offer an
>> in a /materialistic/ paradigm? Why should I?
> Oh so you want to shift the meaning of the word "explain".
> Then ITrouble is, you don't recognize that God even exists, much less that He
> can explain it better than you can in one sense, but you can explain
> it to me better in another sense. Is that what you are trying to say
> now? Because in my sense, you have not explained it at all whereas I
> have given you an explanation.
has the power and privilege to arrange bodies in space any way He wants.
Including having Uranus tumbling around the Sun at a cockeyed angle, or
Neptune soaring above the ecliptic, and then diving below it, in ways
that the "accretion disk" could never have left it.
> So would you like to show me where you have explained it - in myI don't think I can, because I already know that you won't accept any
> sense of the word?
explanation. And you will remain blissfully confident in your frankly
weird "orbital resonance" scenario--no, not yours, but one suggested
already by other astronomers. I wasn't impressed with it then, and I'm
not impressed with it now.
> Really? You kept on harping on about the nebula theory then theAnd you did not know that I had read /that/ before, too, though it /was/
> impact theory. I offered you one that had nothing to do with these.
obscure. I don't know whether to commend you for your shrewdness in
digging up something that astronomers considered and threw away years
ago, or continue to castigate you for your naïveté in dredging up
something that the astronomical community long since chucked into the
> So how about backing yourself up Temlakos?And that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? If it isn't materialistic,
> Or is this going to be another of your "non materialistic", "non
> evolutionary" explanations where it appears you think you ought to be
> able to get away with anything, as long as you do not have to produce
> your evidence?
then it explains nothing. You refuse to recognize anything that is above
matter, nor any-One Who created matter to begin with.
>>That's not what you did. You want this group to /believe/ that you did,
> How is putting the logic of your argument back to you a "red herring"?
and you might even believe it yourself. But I don't, and I would urge
discerning minds in this group not to believe it, either.
>> In so doing, I merely quoted the cardinal principle ofNo, but I am /stating/ that you have not adequately shown why those
>> uniformitarianism, as articulated by Charles Lyell: that any
>> that operated in the past is still operating and always will be
>> operating. That "dancing planets" scenario never said anything
>> what could have shut that process down. And as a matter of fact, no
>> human being can ever say that he'll never sneeze again, so your
>> illustration fails for that additional reason.
> So are you assuming that we think that gravity and planetary orbits
> have shut down?
planets, if they "danced" before, should not "dance" again. And you
never did show why Saturn, if that planet did such a "dance," should not
have shaken off its ring.
- rjwatts1 wrote:
>If the last word is an unfounded accusation against me personally, you
> Oh dear. Last post you gave me the good old "you typical liberal
> you, always wanting to get the last word". Now you tell me you want
> to have it. ;-)
cannot imagine that I would ever let that stand.
> Look Temlakos, you may well have it. I do not care too much. ShouldActually, a judgment will come--or actually, two, one for each of us.
> some hapless soul come across our conversation and attempt to read
> it, they can judge.
I hold myself responsible to God as to the appropriateness and the
effectiveness of my actions. God will judge that after I go to, shall we
say, join my wife.
But you will likely face your judgment on another occasion (Revelation
20), and that will /not/ be pleasant. You might or might not believe
this, but I don't say that with any pleasure. Frankly, I do not wish
/that judgment/ on even my worst enemies.
Hope springs ever eternal, however. In this case, a hope that you can
avoid that judgment.
> It is not too important what you think, nor what I think, other thanI should hope that no one would ever credit /me/ with demonstrating the
> to us as individuals.
> You may well see yourself as the center of the univserse. I don't
> see either of us being there.
>> Trouble is, you don't recognize that God even exists, much less
> that He
>> has the power and privilege to arrange bodies in space any way He
> Undemonstrated by you.
power of /God/! God handles His own demonstrations, and these are far
more elaborate than anything of which I could possibly be capable.
>You know what? God /does/ cause your nose to run, when it needs to.
> My nose is running. Does God do that as well? After all, I reckon
> that the common cold could do it.
/Nothing/ happens that does not cross the Divine Desk.
> But stick to your guns andActually, I know that I won't have that opportunity--at least not for as
> say "That I refuse to recognize that God exists. God does it." and
> you could argue that one as well, till the end of the universe.
long as you suggest. One way or another, God has told me (in His Written
Word) to expect that He will recall me from the field, one way or
another, long before then.
> But you still have not explained why my nose is running. And unlessShrug away--although if you're smart, you'll stop shrugging and start
> you can provide good evidence that God really is making my nose run
> then I can only shrug my shoulders.
thinking a bit more carefully about where you really do come from. You,
I, and everyone.
> Well no. Why should I? The ring is a relatively recent addition.A short, recent addition? Saturn's rings? Are you serious? Don't you
> You still seem to be thinking in terms of your own mindset in that
> everything was created as is, and nothing changes.
know that many astronomers have said specifically that the rings of
Saturn would have to be thirty billion years old in order to achieve
their present configuration?
> Did you know that comets sometimes appear in the sky? Did you knowOf course. And they have nothing to do with the rings of Saturn.
> that sometimes meteors crash into planets? Did you know that
> sometimes volcanoes erupt on some planets and moons? Occasionally
> some stars explode. Did you know that? Spots appear on the sun
> too. Ever heard of that?
But I'll give you another explanation of those comets: the Flood of
Noah. Specifically, the Flood began when a once-subsurface ocean broke
through to the surface of the earth. The seam of that breakthrough
persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge system. And in the middle of that
cascade of water shooting up from the "fountains of the deep," a small
but significant fraction of that water threw itself into space. It
persists as comets, as ice on the Moon and Mercury, etc.