Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Animals, the Great Beyond, and Creation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dad" data-source="post: 32466125" data-attributes="member: 98011"><p>That's their problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p> According to your faith be it done unto you. For those with no faith, they will see nothing, as all they see is the physical.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Sometimes the answer is 'no'. It is still an answer.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Maybe he got a more receptive flock in heaven?</p><p></p><p></p><p> I think, the fact that the behaviour of the 'machines' changed, is more the point. Not harping on how random the program was. They did say it was checked.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Well, they may not have used your book. </p><p></p><p></p><p> You said that "the paper doesn't mention any methodology " so how do you know it wasn't rigorous? Your assuming it wasn't isn't that rigorous. Work on that.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Oh, right, you didn't seem to understand that, if I recall.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> I guess it is easier for you to pretend, and kid yourself, when the evidence is hidden.</p><p></p><p></p><p> No need to, I simply stuff it willy nily in it's little fishbowl.</p><p></p><p></p><p> No need to make any exceptions inside the little fishbowl where it applies!</p><p></p><p></p><p> That you only reach that conclusion by a myth is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dad, post: 32466125, member: 98011"] That's their problem. According to your faith be it done unto you. For those with no faith, they will see nothing, as all they see is the physical. Sometimes the answer is 'no'. It is still an answer. Maybe he got a more receptive flock in heaven? I think, the fact that the behaviour of the 'machines' changed, is more the point. Not harping on how random the program was. They did say it was checked. Well, they may not have used your book. You said that "the paper doesn't mention any methodology " so how do you know it wasn't rigorous? Your assuming it wasn't isn't that rigorous. Work on that. Oh, right, you didn't seem to understand that, if I recall. I guess it is easier for you to pretend, and kid yourself, when the evidence is hidden. No need to, I simply stuff it willy nily in it's little fishbowl. No need to make any exceptions inside the little fishbowl where it applies! That you only reach that conclusion by a myth is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Animals, the Great Beyond, and Creation
Top
Bottom