• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Recent content by SamCJ

  1. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    Have you edited Wikipedia to fit your belief that activation energy cannot be the cause" Balderdash! Causes are experienced throughout the physical universe, but Leprechauns are not.
  2. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    You misstate the frequent argument. It is not that everything in existence is caused. That proposition would be internally inconsistent and nonsensical. The argument us that everything in physical nature is caused. That leaves the possibility of a spiritual cause; the first cause of everything...
  3. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    You are right. Excuse me. Is not the "no cause" proposition an argument from ignorance? If you can argue from ignorance, why cannot I argue the reverse from ignorance? At least my argument is consistent with the remainder of what scientists and non-scientists know from experience. The...
  4. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    YOu removed the part about "activation energy" from the quote. The article implies that the energy is activated by a certain juxtaposition of the electrons, neutrons and protons. You beliieve the decay has no cause, right? No dancing, Fred. Answer the questtion.
  5. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    This site says radioactive decay is caused by activation energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay You should be ashamed of yourself for deceiving children.
  6. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    I would like to oblige you, but I do not see any logical need to do so. Thanks for your sympathy. That is why I am searching for some intelligence on this site, but your persistent arguments that everything natural is stupid are getting me down. You apparently missed the discussion about...
  7. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    As arguments have been raised, I have refined the articulation of the point I am trying to make. My intent has not changed, but I can understand the bait and switch claim. I thought you had been privvy to all my arguments with you and others on this thread and the one of BVZ that started my...
  8. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    there is no KNOWN cause. Without knowing whether I am right for certain, I am saying quantum mechanics does not absolutely preclude the possibility of a cause of radioactive decay. Do you think I am wrong? Perhaps so, but it is pointless to do so if we got here by mere accident. I can also...
  9. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    That's fine. I think you exaggerate the weakness of the circumstantial evidence of a creator. EG, there is a cause for everyting in nature, and that it strong evidence of a cause for the universe, a possibility that has not vanished into nothingness. But your point is reasonably arguable...
  10. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    Evolutionists are the ones who clearly implied that their direct observations precluded an intelligent cause. How would I know how direct observation could address that issue since I have never had such a direct observation? You now seem to be arguing that the evolutintionists claim of such a...
  11. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    Did you see my discussion of the car accident and the prehistoric animal bitten by a T-rex? I do not know enough about mutation to know what the eye witness evidence might show, and apparently the biologists don't either.
  12. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    I don't propose that you do it by direct observation, because I believe, and at time I have thought you believed, that direct observation is presently impossible. At times, you seem to be defending Loudmouth's position that "direct observation" in the context of the accidental vs intentional...
  13. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    You cannot know "It won't" because you have never seen it. Direct observation was very helpful in addressing the "accident vs intentional" issue in the car on ice and the animal bitten by T-rex examples previously discussed. Certainly, you can't from the limitations on your observation, so...
  14. S

    If you cant observe it directly, it can't be true...

    You seem to have deliberately ignored the point. You are addressing the "Who's correct" issue. Wrong issue. You can't even develop a reasonable argument to support this assumption. But since it cannot be done, we do not need to argue about what it could or could not show. Whether or not the...