- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,703
- 52,520
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Don't just blame the children. How many adults were there too?Naive credulity in children is precious, but in adults-
Ooooh ... you mean written evidence? like documentation?Since we do have evidence of that happening, from both American accounts and British accounts from the Revolutionary War, yes, it did happen.
See, there's that thing: evidence.
Ooooh ... you mean written evidence? like documentation?
I wonder why Christians don't use that too!?
His army attacked the British and they were both on the same side of the river. His letters say he did. The letters of his men say he was there. They describe an attack. The British say there were attacked. Unless everyone is lying for a reason I can't fathom. Yes.Did Washington cross the Delaware?
Is that why their boss ended up at the bottom of the Red sea?
Because it's reported that some Buddhist monks levitate and fly, and St. John of the Cross as well as St. Teresa of Avila are reported to have levitated, as well as others in the differing spiritual trajectories, I have no problem with the idea or image of Jesus walking on water.So Jesus didn't walk on water?
I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.Consider fluids for a moment. At the microscopic level it is just a bunch of identical (perhaps with a few contaminants or solutes) molecules colliding with each other by the basic properties of QM and electrostatics. But, at the larger scale the fluid has viscosity, surface tension, pressure, etc. Properties that aren't found in an specific term in the microscopic interactions, but that emerge from the collective interactions of many.
You've seen all this evidence yourself, have you? or do you believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view?Except that it's not just accounts like "This book says that Jesus walked on water" (yeah, there's technically three; Matthew, Mark and John, but I'm making a point). It's also first-hand accounts of people at the battle of Trenton, orders and accounts from the generals present at the battle, along with actual physical evidence of the crossing having occurred too.
Of course you do. It appears to be time for you to see your ophthalmologist.I'm calling it as I see it. Nothing more, nothing less.
These reporters, did they die for putting that in writing and then refusing to recant?Because it's reported that some Buddhist monks levitate and fly, and St. John of the Cross as well as St. Teresa of Avila are reported to have levitated,
You've seen all this evidence yourself, have you? or do you believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view?
(Have you seen my Milliard Fillmore posts?)
Of course you do. It appears to be time for you to see your ophthalmologist.
An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.
If Hans puts on 50 pounds, at the larger scale he now has diabetes, coronary heart disease and a touch of osteoarthritis. You may call these "emergent" properties but they are not; it's still the same old Hans. Now, if Hans dropped 70 pounds and could fly then that would be an "emergent" (unexplained) property. Or if an ape in the wild painted a image of its mother then that would be evidence an "emergent" (unexplained) property.
Nope. Reworded the evo's position for levity but did not distort them. If you think I did then pls identify the distorted answer.Nice strawman.
I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.
This is another huge failing of creationists and religionists. We stand on the shoulders of others. There is no need to have to "see it for yourself." There is simply too much knowledge in the world to be able to study it all, learn it all and see it all for yourself. That's why we have the scientific method. If we all do our jobs, we can count on others to do theirs, we learn and advance without being bound to this... "did you see it for yourself" mentality. It allows you to specialize and advance far further than you ever could if you had to replicate every single experiment and observation for yourself. Yes, it also opens the door for someone to perpetuate a falsehood. There is no point to that. Unless you're living in a world where you know you're already doing that. Do you know anyone who's doing that? Say, the Ark Encounter? The Creation Museum? No wonder you're so skeptical of everyone.You've seen all this evidence yourself, have you? or do you believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view?
(Have you seen my Milliard Fillmore posts?)
Ha, sorry for the snark. Must’ve completely missed your intended irony.Huh?
You said Yep, which is generally taken as agreement.
I make mild attempt at a funny, that agreeing is not much of
a argument and I get all that back?
You take it, and build some fantastical structure
with at least a half dozen falsehoods about me that you
simply fabricated from thin air?
As it happens, I only yesterday finished a book on the
mysteries of speech, which is why I thought to comment
as I did.
If Nature is not an adequate source for my comment
there doubtless are more.
Of course, I don't know what specific claim you made
about FOX, though you seemed to be contradicting
me.
Seems to me the elabourste conclusion based on
zero data delivered with snark and personal remarks
is hat most properly the terrain of the creo, and it I'll befits you
to mimic it.
If you think I did then pls identify the distorted answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?