Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, you've lost me.
To Proper Knob:
Did you check out those difinitions I posted?
They are on 20. If you agree that those
definitions are correct the way you understand
it, then we agree. If not, give me your definitions
for those terms so I can see where we disagree.
I can see why many Christians would accept
evolution, if those definitions are correct.
RJHinds
What does me agreeing with those defintions have to do with you understanding what i've posted? You either understand what i've written or you don't.
To Proper Knob:
I've got chess games to play. Yard work to do.
etc., etc. I got to leave in a few minutes. If we
can determine that we can agree on some of the
general terms we are heading to discuss; then we
can cut out a lot of wasted time spent on this subject.
I understand what you are saying, so far, but why
drag it out unnecessarily?
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah without sounding to cooky where do these beings dwell if they indeed exist? Another realm or other dimensions? Maybe they just live light years away. People always think angels wings and feathers ect. Maybe they are beings similar to us but different. If spirit maybe they are not bound by the physical laws of this universe.
These aliens could be these good and bad angels
that God created before he created man.
Truely,
RJHinds
Lastly maybe some are Good and some are bad.
Manny
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have already asked me what I mean and I have already told you.
To Andrew Hamilton:
Webster's dictionary gives several definitions of nature.
Now, I suppose you mean this definition:
"6. [sometimes cap.] An agent, force, or principle, or
set of such forces or principles, viewed as creating,
controlling, or guiding the universe; as by provision of
nature."
If not, explain what definition of nature you mean.
If so, where did this agent, force, or principle come from?
RJHinds
I have already given my definition of nature on page 19 and you even acknowledged it on page 19 so I am puzzled by why you ask again.
Reminder: I say nature is:
“...all that exists physically and which is not man-made and also excluding any so-called “supernatural” thing...” (my quote on page 19)
I am sure the above is a reasonably good approximation of what most people mean by the word in everyday English.
“...."6. [sometimes cap.] An agent, force, or principle, or
set of such forces or principles, viewed as creating,
controlling, or guiding the universe; as by provision of
nature." ...”
I don't deny that the above definition exists but I have never heard of that definition or anything like it and I find it extremely vague (esp with vague words in this context like “agent”, “force” etc) and it has the word “nature” in its own definition thus making it circular! so I definitely don't mean the above (whatever the above means!)
Surely most people would say, for example, that a grain of sand is part of nature. But how would a grain of sand conform to the above definition? I mean, Is a grain of sand an “agent”? Or a “force”? Or a “principle”? -I don't think the above definition makes sense. Very strange!
Originally posted by RJHindsI have chess games to play, 36 more than you as it stands at the moment. I also have tasks, chores and targets to achieve today. I think it's a little presumptious of you to say this is dragging unnecesarily when you don't know my schedule.
To Proper Knob:
I've got chess games to play. Yard work to do.
etc., etc. I got to leave in a few minutes. If we
can determine that we can agree on some of the
general terms we are heading to discuss; then we
can cut out a lot of wasted time spent on this subject.
I understand what you are saying, so far, but why
drag it out unnecessarily?
RJHinds
I haven't the time, or inclination, to sit down and write a massive essay on this topic. I chose to break it up into bits for time reasons, and also because we can find out exctly when you don't agree with me and for what reason.
You say it's dragging on, but lets be honest, all you have to do is read a paragraph or two and tell me whether you agree with it or not. It's hardly time consuming for you, i'm the one typing it.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've not offended me, far from it.
To Proper Knob:
You seem to be offended by my last two posts to you.
I apologize, I didn't realize you had such a busy schedule
that answering a few questions would be so offensive to
you. But if you prefer just lecturing me, then go ahead
and I will consider it.
RJHinds
I'm not lecturing you, i'm explaining a scientific concept to you which you yourself have stated you know nothing about (other than it is false). I'm taking it slowly, to make sure you understand what is being said, and also to make sure what i type is accurate and clear. At the moment i am a little busy but i will get back on it maybe tomorrow but definitely on Wednesday. The next bit is crucial and it requires some thought and a little bit of time from me, both of which i don't have at the moment.
Apologies if i came across a little curt, inflection of tone cannot be carried by text.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou little curt you!
You've not offended me, far from it.
I'm not lecturing you, i'm explaining a scientific concept to you which you yourself have stated you know nothing about (other than it is false). I'm taking it slowly, to make sure you understand what is being said, and also to make sure what i type is accurate and clear. At the moment i am a little busy but i will ...[text shortened]...
Apologies if i came across a little curt, inflection of tone cannot be carried by text.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsTo RJHinds:
To Proper Knob:
That's good. Thanks for taking the time.
I hope you don't think I'm a liar like
twhitehead does.
RJHinds
Thanks for engaging Proper Knob and twitehead
in these discussions. I am very pleased to see
Proper Knob in particular take the time to break
it down for you.
Thanks Proper Knob, I am paying attention too🙂
I'm just not posting in this one. (oops )
karoly aczel
Originally posted by RJHindsI didn't say 'liar', I said dishonest. Not quite the same thing.
That's good. Thanks for taking the time.
I hope you don't think I'm a liar like
twhitehead does.
I think it is dishonest to make claims regarding something you know nothing about, or something you could not possibly know. You said all science experiments have failed. How could you possibly know this?
If you had qualified it with "as far as I know", then it might be more understandable.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't know what you are talking about here.
To Andrew Hamilton:
Your definition of "nature" sure reminds me of
God's creation. But if not, then maybe you should
put this forward to the scientific community as an
"hypothesis" so that they could test it. Maybe it will
be good enough to be called a "theory".
RJHinds
A definition is not a “theory” or “hypothesis”.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory
“...1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, ...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
“...A definition is a passage that explains the meaning of a term ...”
As you can see, the two things are different. Explaining a “meaning” is different from explaining a “group of facts or phenomena”. Therefore I was not and am not putting forward a “theory” or “hypothesis” simply by defining what I generally mean by the word.
You either agree with the definition or you don't depending on what you mean by the word or what most people mean by the word. Most people would agree with my definition and a general agreement on a definition does not constitute a “theory”.
“...Your definition of "nature" sure reminds me of
God's creation....”
How do you know it is a creation?
As I have already said, for something to be “created”, one minimal requirement is that FIRST there has to be a point in time when it did NOT exist and THEN there has to be a point in time when it did exist. But, since there was no point in time when there existed “nothing” (including nature), logically, nature was never “created” because nature exists (by my definition of nature that most people would agree with) at ALL points in time and therefore there was no point in time when nature did NOT exist.
Do you understand the above logical deduction? Is there any specific part of the above logical deduction you disagree with?
To Andrew Hamilton:
The definition is okay. It is like one of those in the dictionary.
And I did not mean for you to put forth the definition of "nature"
as a "hypothesis"; I meant the idea that nature created itself.
As far as I know, God created the heavens, the earth, and all
living things. The Holy Bible tells me so. And as far as I know,
the Holy Bible has not been disproven, even though, it has been
around for a very long time. Many people have tried to disprove
it, but have failed, as far as I know. And by your definition, it
appears to me that "nature" is what God created.
RJHinds