My God, My Opinion

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online My God, My Opinion file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with My God, My Opinion book. Happy reading My God, My Opinion Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF My God, My Opinion at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF My God, My Opinion Pocket Guide.

First let me complement you on your argument. Let me explain:. Evolution is the random creation of useful biological structures which are sorted by natural selection. If the DNA can preserve itself, it is passed to the next generation. Therefore, the origin of biological information is the same as cause of evolution. Lie on your back and look up. Do you see any shapes in the clouds? Can you name them? Unless you believe that God is talking to you through the clouds at which point I will walk away from this discussion , then you have just witnessed randomly generated information.

For years before modern navigation, sailors used the stars to find their way around the world. Again, those of you who think that God engineered messages into the stars for you should stop reading now. If you take it as given that the stars are random, then they are an example of non-designed information. This would suggest that you do not need an intelligent typist. You only need a reader that is primed to interpret information and able to do something with it.

A cloud is a cloud, an electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine. Clouds are not built from instructions. They are built from chaos. It is impossible to predict what cloud will appear next. It is possible to predict what a creature will look like, given sufficient knowledge of its DNA. You misunderstand. I am not using clouds to model creatures, I am using them to model DNA. You say:. The point is that clouds are a randomly generated form of information.

The cloud is in fact created from chaos and water droplets as you say and humans can interpret them as shapes that do not have to do with the medium. The same is true of the stars which move in predictable and navigationally informative patterns. In other words, coded information does not have to come from a mind. None of these things can be properly labeled as communication systems. No offense meant. The idea of Information Entropy and any appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is inherently flawed. These things fuel all the processes of both our cellular and sexual reproduction.

We constantly expose ourselves to new information when we eat steak. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy goes up, information is lost, etc. There is no contradiction that implies anything further. This is classically illustrated by thinking of a person who is trapped in an entirely in a black and white room.

As they grow older, they become an expert in the field of color, even though they have never seen it. One day, though, someone tosses an apple into the room, and suddenly their understanding of color transcends anything they had previously known. In this lies qualia. There is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. From this we deduce merely that there is another substance beyond what we traditionally think of as the material world.

I have recently come to the conclusion that, by and large, God intentionally does not reveal himself in scientifically verifiable means. Instead, God operates on a personal level. If God truly desires a relationship with us, he would not reveal himself in a bland and dispassionate manner.

For example, I have had a very clear and distinct vision from God several years back, for which I thank God and consider myself incredibly blessed. It is this vision which has brought me here, even, as in it I received my purpose in directly combating the New Atheism and baseless moral structure that now plagues our society. But it is not scientifically verifiable. But if I earn their trust and show them that I have something real and good, then I will be able to minister to their needs. What we need on offense is good philosophy to expose the poor philosophy inherent in so many modern ideas.

I was very, very grateful to have found this book, and the circumstances surrounding that are rather extraordinary, as well. As I picked it up just yesterday, I discovered that the way had already been prepared in terms of discovering the roots of these modern ideas, and as I read, I could see my own ideas which I had been thinking on for several months — if not years — suddenly unfolding in completion before me.

So anyhow, I highly recommend you pick it up. In it, I think you will find the true battleground where we must fight our spiritual battle against modern ideas. I agree with a lot of what you said except your whole spiel on understanding. To see a color is not to understand it, it is to experience it.

Experience does not necessarily equate to knowledge. A sensation or experience is only understood through mutual experiences, not knowledge. For instance, someone who has never felt pain, will not be able to share in a the mutual experience when the idea is expressed, instead he will always have an abstract idea of it. So I would have to disagree that it is redundant. Next you said that as far as we are aware there is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia.

I find this a little confusing because qualia originates from your brain, and your brain is made of atoms. So while an atom independently may not be able to cause qualia, it definitely is responsible indirectly for it. Anyhow, I think you misunderstand me when I say the person who sees an apple understands color on a deeper level.

But I hold that atoms cannot produce qualia. Yes, they are responsible for producing the signal that ultimately gets translated into qualia, but qualia transcend physical existence. Computers store information and churn out responses regularly. Hi blind sight I just wonder why does man want to recreate. Why do most men or women desire having child.

If some people do not believe in afterlife why create life knowing I will have will be gone again forever. Why love someone only to be hurt when you lose them. Ultimately why would you desire to continue living, working, struggling, enjoying what for? I say after life because some people believe there is life after death but may not accept God as the reason What is sciences answer to emotion.

We know be bad can lead to self destruction and good can lead to longevity and peace. Why do most prefer the later. Can you count all the stars or all the sand on the earth. You call it chaos because it can not be calculated by man. What else do assume is chaos because we can not pre determine the outcome. Some things will forever be beyond us while we are here on earth. Would you show the world how to time travel if you ever discovered a way to do it? Looks like the first two lines there were quoting you, Perry. Check the last comment up the thread. Just got correct you there, Evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense when they had to modify it is random mutation followed by natural selection.

However a replicating replicator DNA has to be in existence before it can mutate and be selected for or against. Evolution has nothing to say about the billions of codons already existent in the first simple cell if such a simple cell existed. Read Mr. I believe I discovered he believes as I do, God uses the evolutionary process in creation. Face it, we may never really know our origins. Yes you are right Dave and intelligent as we humans may seem we are not the most intelligent. We live in a dimension created for us with laws and human limitations, much like a creation we have not been able to built till now.

Which serves our causes but does in some manner harm to us too. Example: We have been so far been able to develop a new world within our world and that is the Cyber World, right!? Anything and everything in this world is created by us too. Do you think that anything which is created in the realm of the Cyber world could possibly think or understand its creator? A creation cannot understand its creator unless or untill the creator wishes. Now God creator has created us humans for some sort of exam.

Religion it seems is the only guideline that makes sense. Since God the creator, Imagine yourself as a creator of a world and with set rules and laws, predictions, timelines etc etc…. It is the destructive nature of man which comes from greed and impatience that can never allow the human race to live in peace.

What is nature. A creator almost never wants its creation to kill itself or to take over the creator. A scientist if not working to kill its specimen will not want any such occrance to occur. Why would any loving creator do that. Is God a loving creator or not? God is a loving creator and that he has mentioned in the Quran more so often. It is the choice that makes the difference.

Choice comes from within and not from any outer source. There is no such thing as destiny unless you want it that way. Crusades were fought by Muslims for the very peace that they had in their world and they wanted the same for the people under barbaric and currupt rulership. Leaving Islam or Religion aside, God has always sent us messages, for those who want to listen to them or want to know the truth and the whole truth.

For those who consider that life as we know it is everything, and cannot comprehend the existence of God or a Loving Creator can always continue to live as they wish. The only problem in that is they will live a hard harsh life with no rules and no boundaries much like the apemen were living in the past when they didnt believe in anything.

Remember that time?! Is it not true that Apemen as we know them or the early people were Athiests and didnt know how to light fire!? We as humans will not evolve and have five hands with 10 fingers. We as living beings have been given the gift of adapting to our surroundings. If this code was not written we would not be able to survive in this world.

Human out of all beings on this earth is the most intelligent so much so that it has been said the universe has been created for us…The question is will we be able to live long enough to see the corners of it. God has created perfection, Humans have not been able to do it. So are you gonna side with the Devil and curse the creator or accept and respect HIM your god your creator. Judgment day!! As soon as he realises its time, he will pull the plug.. Life is a gift…. There never were any apemen. The whole idea of apemen is atheistic. As far as cave men there are people who live in caves today.

Some of the Neanderthals who had bigger brains than we do, made super glue , flutes, planted flowers on the graves of their dead, cared for their sick and held religious services lived in caves. These are well known facts but to explain away God they are portrayed as more animal than human. They were as human as you are and you in fact may be one of their descendants as I may be as well. History teaches us the oldest people we have records of worshiped one God, the creator of heaven and earth, they were not atheists. Pantheism and the animism of people such as the Arabs with their jins etc.

The whole concept of apemen has no basis in fact and neither does your assertion the ancients were atheists. While your note about the Piltdown man is accurate, you have ignored a monument of scientific information that address pre-human bipedal primates. Modern humans are very recent. Further, the earlier primates were clearly non-human i. Fazale Rana.

Richmond, B. No matter what the evidence those that deny God must bend it to their view. I would find the whole story hysterically funny as well as absurd save so many will be lost over it.

  • DIY - Craft This Country Floral And Lace Nosegay (DIY - Craft This Country Floral And Lace Bridal Wedding Basket Book 1).
  • My Guy (my God).
  • This Quote Is From.
  • Site Information Navigation?
  • Deliverance Prayers Against Evil Injections.

Go to the Field Museum, P. Barnum would blush at the Lucy doll with her absolutely human figure,hands feet, eyes, nose etc. The people who made the one in St. Louis went so far as to add human genitalia to fool children into believing this side show freak display you call science is true. Tell me Jim, since you think you are a scientist how any dating beyond what can be cross checked with human historical record can be done without at least 3 assumptions that are pulled straight from the air?

Otherwise you are telling me your faith , not science. I already have a faith. I predict you will ignore the question and tell me all scientist believe this and that makes it true. They do not all believe it Jim and even if it was true you could never be sure, you only have the faith, the belief. Even from an evolutionary view to believe monkeys to turn to man in 40ka is absurd. Neanderthals were just as human as you are and you may in fact be one. They made superglue, made complex mathematical calculations, held religious services , buried their dead and played music as they put flowers on the graves of those they cared for and could not be saved.

When the evolutionists decided the Aborigines were at least 60ka old he was forced to change his interpretation of the Bible. Truth never changes,God never changes. I doubt they ever will but the assumption that would prove random events turned monkeys into men is childishly absurd. Have you ever stopped and realized that those who believe in evolution believe in it and then go trying to find evidence to support it? Evolution has nothing to do with science, it is all about God.

Why would the existence of a bi-pedal ape convince anyone DNA rewrote its own order to turn a creature that is still vastly different from a human being into one? It seems you should be looking for a monkey who can read ,write and play chess, that Jim would impress me. Not a lot of grant money in finding ape ancestors.

In the end all we have ever found are people and apes, never an ape-man and we never will. God made apes and He made us. All creatures adapt to their environments but apes will always be apes and people will always be people. Jim I will give you the benefit of being ignorant of any information nor Ross approved but to claim that all biologist agree that Neanderthals were not human is false. To say you can dig up a bone and decide it has a spirit is absurd.

These people made music, they were human beings. Ross is the best friend an atheist ever had. Recent research publications indicate that some Neanderthals may have had red-hair, fair complexions, and the capacity for speech and language. Carles Lalueza-Fox et al. Wall and Sung K.

The authors of the article reevaluated work done on sequencing of the Neanderthal genome last year published in the journals Nature and Science and suggest that contamination with modern human DNA may have been a factor for the work published in Nature. Jim most scientist who get published preach atheistic evolution so all their conclusions are tainted by those assumptions. If you start out believing God spoke the truth to us the evidence makes perfect sense It is pure assumption that if a particular sample of DNA does not match another that they could not interbreed.

No one would ever mistake Neanderthal DNA with a monkeys. Bower, B. Trinkus, E. Knopf, New York, p. Lubenow, M. The problem with trying to claim historical science and operational hold the same weight is you have to ignore the axioms. Since modern science is controlled by overwhelmingly atheistic people that is the axiom, no God. They held on to the flood until when the con-man lawyer Charles Lyell eventually convinced them the Mosaic account was a myth. That is why the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium became so popular, gradualism was based on a well known lie.

Ross thinks if he compromises and agrees with He knows that a recent study proved that the more children attend Sunday School and Church the less likely they are to remain in church after graduation and he knows why that is. The reason they gave was overwhelming. The church is too faced, it tells them the Bible is true where it talks of morality and salvation and to just ignore what it says about history and science. They reason a liar is a liar, if the first verse is a lie why read the second?

But this knowledge means nothing to him because he has decided truth for himself. In the end science is beside the point, we all have to die and we all face our maker Jesus Christ. He said the flood was a real event, that humans and animals were created the same day and how anyone can disagree with God , and that is who Jesus is, and can still convince themselves He will save their souls is beyond me.

The beginning means the beginning or we have no reason to believe. Correcting God seems unwise, if a person truly believes He exists. Meanwhile I ask you to refrain from posting. I will make you a deal Perry, I will send you a copy of Dr. That seems equitible and fair to me. Refuting compromise is the best creationist argument against your view and according to you Snokes is for yours. Well, that was quite a disjointed ramble and a lot of personal accusations.

You should complement, rather than condemn, scientists for being honest for rejecting this hoax. This fraud prevented research on other pre-human bipedals e. Science does self-correct itself. Please do the same — and — get on with new scientific discoveries. Neanderthals are NOT Human. The most recent DNA analysis indicates, not only that they were not human, but that Neanderthals did not contribute to the human genome. The Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA examined to date is distinctly different from that of humans… No mitochondrial DNA sequences from Neanderthals have been encountered in modern humans.

Show me one!? In Summary — Tree Rings go back to years Bristlecone Pine while others go back over 12, years. Ancient Coral reefs that we find on land around the world go back over , years. Light takes time to travel. Proxima Centauri is 4. In summary, you claim that most if not all scientific findings are all invalid since most scientists are atheists. Also, that the reason for children abandoning the Christian faith is because of science. I think we, as Christians, should love science because it shows us the amazing design in the universe — and — gives us clear insight into the character of God Rom 1.

I apologize for the ramble. As far as Piltdown Man Harvard Press still used it as evidence in For 43 years a fraud that would not fool a smart 10 year old was accepted and led many to deny Christ. If you are a Christian then why is that not your great concern and why does it not cause you to question evolution in general? Please note the creationists you consider idiots were never fooled by that or the even worse error of Uniformitarianism that took years for the secularists to concede and yet many still refuse to..

Please do some research, Halton Arp is alive and well and researching at this moment. Making it up does not impress me. Arp is right , the Big Bang is a joke. Christian theologians argued against it is the 2nd century. The southern apes are just that ,apes! None of them walked upright and Lucy was a knuckle walker with super long digits.

The Gibbons are far closer to humans in the way they are designed than southern apes yet since they live today no evolutionists claims they are our ancestor. There are plenty of scientists, secular as well as creationists that interpret Neanderthals as fully human. The fact many disagree means nothing unless you can explain how they could perform complex math , make musical instruments, super glue , have the social structure to bury their dead, perform religious ceremonies etc.

It always amazes me that Christians who compromise the word of God agree with atheists the vast majority of the time and claim those who say that God is the authority and He and Jesus Christ say that scripture is divine are idiots. By that definition being a Christian is an idiot. Joh If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;.

The head scientist on the project wrote the Tara program and NASA sees him as the best geophysicist on earth, as do others. If there was death before sin the Bible is a lie. Show me from the Bible that there could have been thorns and thistles before Adam or be honest with yourself and admit the Bible is not your authority, man is. Read what Lilly said about equilibrium and then read the R.

The majority of the R. E report is referenced from secular sciences records. How is it creationists excel at geology while dismissing great ages as the heathen belief it has always been. If you do not believe in God you must accept great ages, does that not for a second make you pause? Is it a coincidence that those who take God at His word all dismiss great ages and all those who hate God promote them?

The atheists would laugh and persecute you and you can see no reason to stand up and claim the Bible as your authority seeing as it is not such. Read the R. Report, you can download the short version for free. It details a scientific test similar to ur-lead , pot str etc that gives a date of years plus or minus Also Mitochondrial Eve when the figures are adjusted for new discoveries since the report first came out gives a date of years. She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent.


The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: 1 that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and 2 that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong! Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father.

This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA Morris and Mightowlers, , , emphasis added. The August issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction PCR in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses….

We report the case of a year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA! Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.

Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6, years old , emphasis added. There is nothing , period, on this earth older than the flood. That is the word of God! That being said you are dead wrong about Bristle comb Pines. The scientist responsible for them cut one down and counted the rings, it was around you can look it up. You are representing an assumption as a fact. I am not so easily brainwashed. An interesting sidebar is the scientist realizing he had killed one of the oldest living things on earth planted some in Arizona to try and make up for it.

You need to do your homework, to present c data as fact without even telling the person it is in fact c data is dishonest, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are following the atheists without question but you have been warned. If you ever do that again it will be deliberately untrue. A light year is a measurement of distance, not time.

Navigation menu

The Big Bang has the same problem all cosmologies do, Biblically sound or otherwise. For the temperatures of the background microwave radiation to have equalized would take in excess of billion light years yet the BB claims There are far more scientific arguments against millions or billions of years than for them but please understand, ALL atheists believe in great ages and evolution.

That was true centuries before Christ was born, it was true when He was born, it is true now and will be until He returns. No one is insane enough to believe that the world popped into existence quickly for no apparent reason. Sadly there are few who have the faith to believe in the creative power of God, the power Christ used to heal the sick and raise the dead.

Here is a deep thought, if it takes billions of years for God to wait around while the New Heaven and the New Earth create themselves where will we be? Or do you even believe that million years from now you will be alive in heaven with Jesus? Please take this question seriously, what you believe about the age of the earth does not affect your salvation unless of course it affects your belief in Jesus Christ and His blood redemption of your soul.

If He lied , or was just too stupid to know better about the flood and Adam then how can you believe He is God at all? If I accepted the secularist world view I would be one. Mat And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, Mat And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Joh I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. This sounds like another late-night ramble. They are easily refutable. I am familiar with the R. The R. I just did a search and nothing new has been published by the R. However, there has been significant challenges to their findings by other scientists.

So, you have the Big Bang proven to I am chosing not to address your statements that equate me and everyone else who disagrees with your young earth science as an atheist. It is true, there are unanswered questions, or gaps, in the theory of evolution. Same can be said for the theory of gravitation. I have to disagree, Jorge. Just a counterpoint I think you missed somehow: 1. Information, unlike matter and energy, is not an objective entity. A sentence in English is information only for those familiar with English, to anyone else it is as nonsensical as a random pile of rocks.

An atom is always an atom — an information is only information in context. And context comes from the mind, not the design of information. For example, a cloud can look like a face, and we would recognize it as looking like a face. Language is merely an arbitrary tool to be used by us, hence it is useless when trying to prove an objective basis of any claim. In fact, DNA code is nothing like any man-made code. Nothing more, nothing less. Perry that Evolution Prize is offered by engineers, not by biologists. This particular one is just an incentive for people to find an practical application for a natural phenomenon which is, like, what ALL technology is.

DNA code works through chemical bonds, nucleotides bind to each other thanks to their functional groups. I mean, why do prokaryotic organisms have such unstable genetic material, if it is all just these purposefully written consistent code? Just finished a good book on evolution, The Tangled Tree. That story is written in RNA? There is nothing in their thinking that reflects the bible or other holy books, even though they twist e.

The trouble is, the holy books are the only source of the god story! In a lot of details, I agree with you. I like the way you think. By the way, are you Dr. Veljko Blagojevic from the Torlak Institute? Sadly you seem to have confused the difference between evidence and the interpretations of said evidence. The school system brainwashes people into accepting popular opinion among scientists as fact and they misrepresent the number of scientist who do not accept Darwinism by a factor of about 10k to one.

The evidence used to argue for evolution is the exact same evidence used to argue for creationism or ID. We all live in the same universe, study the same stars , the same living creatures, the same plants ,the same rocks , the same fossils and we all use the exact same science to study these things with. Just in case I missed one perhaps you can give me one single example of a law of nature or major branch of modern science that was founded by an evolutionist?

Good luck, there may be one but so far no evolutionist has ever been able to give me an example. That being said what one believes has little to do with operational science. You mention gravitation in the same breath with evolution and mocking theist. Please learn the difference between ID theorist who may or not be theists and creationists who are all Bible believers.

Even atheists like Francis Crick of DNA fame doubted Darwin and believed we were intelligently designed by little green men. Of course he could never answer where the little green men came from. Regardless of what you believe about origins water still boils at degrees f. The disagreement is why the plates started moving in the first place and why they even exist.

The secularist has no clue , the creationist knows why. The whole idea of plate tectonics comes straight out of Genesis. You can laugh all you want but the man N. The idea started with the creationist Antonio Snider , who like the founder of genetics Gregor Mendel had the grave misfortune to publish in and was ignored for decades.

Who knows where we be now if Mendel was not silenced by the Darwinist for half a century? In case you are unaware Darwin printed his novel in That is a perfect example of your confusion. The software was created on the assumption the Bible is true but if you choose to not believe that on religious grounds you can tweak the starting assumptions and make it work on an atheistic assumption of millions of years. Of course you will never come up with an explanation for why plate tectonics even exists.

The evidence is the same, same plates, same mountains, same everything. What happened in the remote past, whether you believe that is thousands or billions of years ago lies in the realm of historical science. The very fact you have been taught to compare gravity with evolution is overwhelming evidence evolution is a bait and switch, that it is without substance, unscientific. We can do experiments to test the effects of gravity so we know the force we call gravity exists.

Again, the secularist can never now what caused it. As far as believing a dinosaur evolved into a bird there is no experiment to prove that nor a rational, scientific, and logical explanation as to how it could have occurred,much less a shred of evidence it did.

Do you believe in God? |

When we find a dinosaur bone, despite what you are taught at school, it exists in the present. The dinosaur bone proves one thing and one thing only, it died. They do not come with a date stamp or a genealogy chart. You can manufacture any date you choose my changing the assumptions which are based on your world view. You have to have a deep and totally blind religious faith to pick up a T-Rex bone with soft and stretchy meat on it, blood in its blood vessels and reeking of the stench of death and proclaim it is 65ma old!

Not to mention it has easily identifiable amounts of c scientifically proving it cannot be ka old, much less even one million. That bone is better explained in a Biblical chronology , that it is less than years old, blood cells, DNA, and the stench of death lasting for 65 million years requires a deep and abiding religious faith.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

There are many times that many who doubt Darwin. Claiming something is true because a majority believes it is called the bandwagon fallacy. When you told your mother you should be allowed to do something because the other kids were she asked if you would follow them off a bridge. That my friend is the number one argument for evolution by a huge factor, it is no argument at all. Evidence does not speak for itself and without an interpretation is pretty meaningless. When dealing with the past the best evidence is an eyewitness. Only God witnessed His creation, not the evolutionists.

Can you answer the most basic questions about evolution? Where did the information in the first living organism come from, where did the pattern of the chemicals that formed it come from and where did the information for it to reproduce itself come from? That is illogical. Even tree rings e.

Bristlecone pine are over years and other trees are over 12, years old. These layers do tell time plus a lot more about what happened during each time frame. Note: there are places on earth where, due to plate tectonics, where lower layers in the geological column are exposed to the surface. As for dinosaurs, they exist in three distinct layers: the Triassic, Jurassic and the Cretaceous eras, each with clearly delineated boundaries. Each layer has dinosaurs unique to that era and there are clear indications of long periods of time e.

Mammals, especially humans, show up over feet above the dinosaur layers. So YES!! There is a way of calibrating these times even without resorting to the multitude of radiometric clocks. To further say that all the dinosaurs swam for many days during the flood, then dying, sinking to the bottom and forming 3 distinct layers is the type of science you get when you are trying to force fit it into your narrow view of theology.

As for plate tectonics, we know the devastation they caused in Haiti and the Indian Ocean The later was just a 33ft lateral and ft vertical movement of the fault and it caused a ft Tsunami that killed over , people. The energy was ,, times Hiroshima bomb. The model you reference would have a MILE movement of the continents during the one-year flood and moved the continents from Pangaea to their current location. If this were to happen, so much energy would be release to vaporize all oceans and melt the surface of the earth. No one does. I want to know.

It is a set of chemicals that have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution. DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions. This is completely incorrect.

The genetic code, like any code, is freely chosen. There are billions of possible choices that could have been made but there is one choice that was made.

Third Way: Mennonite News

This is the simplest aspect that separates life from non-life. Non-life only obeys laws. But life obeys codes and codes are freely chosen. Anyone who tells you DNA is not a code fundamentally misunderstands the very definition of bioinformatics and DNA itself. To argue that DNA is not code is hopeless, and in my experience, only hardened atheists attempt to make this argument, for fairly predictable reasons.

Look it up in any biology book. As I have told others, you will get nowhere pursuing this line of argumentation. I think you are confusing and sensationalising the facts of the find. Read some real science. The helix being the end result. It takes an astronomical leap of faith, only, to accept the hypothesis you propose. Perry, You always give same answers. Is your response so narrow?. You have created a whole sound theory without the need of a cult or a religion or even J.

Quotes are mine. For the Creator just a sign was needed to start all the Creation Process from the very start. Is it a possibility that He decided to Ceate everything in one shot and let His Tool- Evolution, to carry on without any other interferences in time? We are a composite of trillions of cells. That implies nor infers a designer to me. How can anyone prove what exist, as God, has no beginning and no end. I heard it said once we will travel by the speed of thought. Body impluses travel at , kilometers a second.

I like your example of the typist implies a typer. Same as the watch and watch maker. That is logic for you. Your argument collapses at number 1. The pattern in DNA is a pattern. From the pattern you can deduce certain things, hair colour, eye colour, etc. Atoms in a molecule contain a pattern, and from that you can deduce certain things. You simply assert without any evidence that DNA is a pre-designed code. This is classic religious thinking dressed up in modern garb. Jose, if you intend to be taken seriously by any reasonable person, you need to start putting more thought into the content of your comments.

Second of all, Dawkins and Darwin worked in very different time periods, and they worked in quite different fields — Darwin was a field researcher, while Dawkins is mostly concerned with popularization of science. Also, Darwin was very hesitant about publishing his findings and kept them to himself for some time. The thing that got him to publish his results is that there was another researcher Alfred Russel Wallace who published studies which slowly arrived at the same conclusions Darwin did before in his own studies — and that was a major factor convincing him that his findings will not be so controversial and that he is right to publish them.

On the other hand, Dawkins mostly talks about results other researchers came to, so his conclusions are also resting upon a large number of scientists working in various fields. So, if you intend to call anyone a joke, you would need to list a whole lot of other people with a great amount of education and experience, and the more that list expands before your eyes, the more you should realize how wrong you most probably are. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised with my research in the field of medicine and discoveries about the origin of life on earth.

There is one theory of the origin of life that my research confirms. In that theory, I participated 10 years ago, but my name is not among those scientists. Are you currently in Torlak? If you are, I will call you soon by phone or email in order to talk about a topic that I see you very much interested in. If you are not now in Torlak and Bg, then please give me some email which you do not constantly use, but only for our first future contact. Srdan, here is my official contact email — veljko.

Feel free to write to me, I look forward to any research you can show me or I can be a part of. This contributes nothing to the conversation. As Veljko says you need to say something substantive. And Darwin is to be taken much more seriously than Dawkins. I suggest you read Evolution 2. There is much that you do not know.

Perry, evolution is a theory. Your 2. Neither theory challenges the Cambrian explosion. Everybody with any common sense knows that Darwin was buried in his grave never to find an answer, as well. You should be giving money away to anybody who can find the Cambrian answer. We can agree to disagree, Perry. So, I stand on my nonintellectual, contribute to nothing, comment: Darwin and Dawkins are a joke. Furthermore, their theories, and yours, are an insult to any Christian with any common sense.

You have not read this research, you have not examined the evidence and you are not contributing positively to this discussion. The actual experiments that produce new species etc. This is not to be confused with evolution theories based on anecdotal evidence. But not all. I expect people on this forum to engage with facts. I have no patience for those who only want to come here and repeat bumper sticker slogans.

Those who want to do so can go elsewhere. I also expect a common ground of presenting and considering evidence. Tom Godfrey, for example, believes it is impossible for science to tell us historical information. So there is no common ground on which he and I can have a conversation so I refuse to engage with him.

I hope you will exercise the curiosity and humility necessary to do the careful research and apprise yourself of the information necessary to productively dialogue about this. In short, all the known facts about the subject. A hypothesis is essentially an idea about how something works. How science works is that a person will take an hypothesis and create a test to attempt to bolster or refute that hypothesis.

They will often repeat that test many times to verify the results. The entire experiment is then published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, where others can read it, try the same or other tests, and add to what we observe regarding that hypothesis. Eventually, we get a reasonably clear picture of whether that hypothesis is true or not; the observations regarding that hypothesis, along with hundreds of others on the same subject, are collected into what we call a scientific theory.

Life evolved. As far as Christianity goes, either God created every living thing using evolution, or else God does not exist. If God exists, He must be consistent with reality. There are only two options. Either God AND evolution, or just evolution. The theory of evolution has been demonstrated so well and in so many ways as to demand that we call it the FACT of evolution.

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. Test this logic about God! Only think, visualize or imagine with an open-mind. Eventually, in the process of planning, one considers all the pros and cons. Apart from this the limitations of the present existence as a mortal and boundaries of the mind constrict the means.

These currents are the emotional forces which give energy to the thought constructs conceived by the mind. When one resorts to negative thinking, all the possible thoughts of obstruction to the CAUSE, scheme to truly build roadblocks. Only, in a few handful cases, these positive thinking books rub off a bit of their philosophy. Since the intellect is in itself the limiting factor, in most spiritual disciplines one is asked to drop even the guise of the mind to realize the true self cause the being called GOD or the true self is pure energy or feelings, it is the essence of the universe minus the mental construct or maya.

We are infinitesimally small components of this dream. Of all the components that evolved , the most evolved ones purified themselves fully ie. They are no different than the SOURCE but retain the capacity to desire to play and experience — it is boring to live for eternity in sea of peace, light and silence. But when one operates from the level of conscious he is bereft of all the above considerations as he is one with the source of the universe, and he has no dream apart from the universal dream he is in, and this dream is immeasurably better than anything that he can concive of coz this dream is formed from the wisdom of over countless births or evolutions of the universe.

Every problem comes with its solution cause causality is an integral ingredient for the dream to go on. At the consciousness level everything is in a resolved state cause every event is accompanied by the resolution and since every bit of this universe emanates from it big bang and everything finally has its dissolution in it and also since everything is its reflection it would invariably reflect its qualities of serenity and love.

Approaching God to resolve a situation with hope mental construct of desire and faith in the heart energy born of intuition not logic definitely accomplishes the desired result. The medium of GOD helps to operate from the consciousness level. The trick here is to relay on a higher intelligence that has both conceived the universe and at the same time is sustaining it to maintain harmony and experience itself through its creation.

In truth GOD does nothing. He is benign and sleeping otherwise how can he dream this universe and us. In truth we are the creators of our destiny. Thus the adage the microcosm reflects the macro. To become the masters of our destinies all we have to do is stop being the creators of our destiny. That is the paradox of duality. Cause when we stop playing GOD we become one with the creation and as the acceptance benign of the one reality becomes more and more unconditional, the closer we come to our Self. The intelligent design theory you are putting forth may show strong anecdotal evidence for the existence of a supreme being, but does NOT prove such an intelligence is the one imagined by Christians in any way, shape or form.

Such an intelligence could just as well be the monotheistic pantheism of the Hindu faith the Bramahn , the Great Spirit envisioned by some Native American tribes, or even as many suspect NONE of these religious viewpoints at all and something we simply do not understand. I simply cannot make a leap of faith based on scientific evidence that is skewed to act as proof of one belief system, when the belief system and the existence of an Intelligent designer are completely and irrevocably outside the tenets of a particular faith.

This is the exact reason that the US government does not want intelligent design used in a classroom—it will be regionally usurped to explain a particular belief, and that is as un-American as communism. I think instead you are preaching to the choir, and are trying to use science to prove Christianity, which is inaccurate and non-scientific in itself. Evidence creates a theory, and the evidence you lecture on does not prove Christian theology in any way that I can read, and I heard all your lectures on this site.

Teens talk about Jesus

This creates the game called life in which we spend all our lives deeply engrossed. But like any game the better player wins. This is the true lesson of the Bhagavat Gita- perform action without expectations of fruits coz if the karma is done correctly the fruit will follow. This is the reason the ancients said not a leaf moves or an ant bites without the permission of SHIVA. That is the reason elders who are wise say —everything happens for the best. Some times the drama of life is to drive home a truth while at other times it is just for the sheer pleasure of existence.

At times even when the truth is bitter to swallow, if taken with the awareness that it is a game, will make one have the sporting spirit to play better in the game ahead. Let us not make the mind a slave to the circumstances but make the reality reflect the state of our minds. As long as we live our life in compartments, we lead a fragmented life. It is just a paradigm shift in the mind state, everything will be as it is outside. When we oscillate in time we are in effect living life in compartments. But when we live life by the moment, reality glides past us with no power to cling to us.

For what I am sure is the th time the vagina needs no cleaning and the vulva needs very little. OK I had to look. I was pretty right on with the smell it has camphor, menthol, nutmeg oil, thymol, eucalyptus oil, turpentine oil and cedar leaf oil. Turpentine oil, eucalyptus oil, camphor oil and cedar leaf oil are known skin irritants and sensitizers so there is that.

Camphor, turpentine oil, and menthol can be counter irritants. For example the cooling sensation of menthol on the skin can reduce itch. Counter irritants often produce unpleasant sensations, basically you are replacing one unpleasant sensation with another one that is less unpleasant. A normal vagina or vulva should have no unpleasant sensations. It is not uncommon to see vaginal reactions to counter irritants placed on the vulva as the mucosa inside the vagina is more sensitive to irritants. It is very hard to apply something on the vulva and have it not seep into the vagina.

I once dated a guy who insinuated my vagina did not smell right. For example, he though my hair would be better if it were straight. He thought I would look better if I dressed a certain way. Again I took the bait. I just felt worse. When it came around to telling me how my vagina could be better it finally clicked that this is a form of control that men often use. Fortunately I am an appropriately confident vagina expert and I had a light bulb moment and dumped his sorry ass. I realize this may border on TMI, but honestly if it happened to me I bet it has happened to other women.

If you think you have a medical condition, see a doctor. If your partner insinuates that an artificial smell is preferable to the smell of a normal vagina they are the one who has an issue. Telling women how they can be better is a classic way of tapping into body image issues and honestly in my personal opinion it is a form of abuse. I had Vicks rubbed on my chest a long time ago and certainly before your time, Dr Jen.

I cannot tell you how much I enjoy your lessons — intellectually inspiring messages and informative news —. The outer layer of skin is dead, right?

  • 65 replies on “Vaginal Vicks VapoRub, oh my God people just don’t”.
  • How To Know Whether You’re Trusting God…or Just Being Stupid.
  • Real Risk Lives on the Edge of Spectacular;
  • Shared Bath?
  • “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists”.
  • A Beautiful Path: Me, You: Unexpected gifts and lessons of love from our special needs son.
  • Throwing The Perfect Pitch: Transforming Sales Engineers and Sales Consultants from Rookies to MVPs?

So why not get right in there and get down to the sensitive skin where we can really maximize pleasure and sensation! Please advise. The Dremel with the pointy tip, so you can get inside the really small spaces and grind them deep down………. Many years ago, at an antenatal appointment, the doctor commented he could smell TCP strong antiseptic solution. I explained I had been cleaning the garage earlier and so the whiff was on my clothes. Wow … mind boggling where these ideas come from. This one seems especially painful and pointless. Not some men?

Or some people even? So you once dated a guy who did something, and now it is something men often do. Hey Tim, thanks for commenting.

OSHO: My God! There Is No God!

I do find it somewhat odd that phrase stuck with you in a negative way. Like a lot of women. More women than you will ever meet. Ya know what? I hear my life experiences mirrored back to me. Kind of like you are doing now. Or perhaps it touched a nerve. Hard to know. At this point you are at a fork in the road.

I think I will try to do better.

My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion
My God, My Opinion My God, My Opinion

Related My God, My Opinion

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved