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
What “is” a radio signal-?
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="Dig4truth" data-source="post: 73119352" data-attributes="member: 357420"><p>Thanks for the response. I'm no expert either, and apparently my typing skills are rather lacking. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, indirect evidence. We must assume some things when evaluating indirect evidence. I don't discount it but it is not in the same ballpark as observational evidence. Observational evidence can be tested and repeated. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but ideas are just that until you can test them. What I am trying to state here is that many people have "ideas" that necessarily exclude God from the equation. I would not suggest listening to these people. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"We know" is a strange expression for theoretical ideas. That's kinda my point. </p><p></p><p>Many of the "evidences" that point to the modern theories can only be derived by very exclusive means that are not available to the general public. Most of these people hold to the new "science" that says that God can NEVER be the answer. In other words, most of mordern science has at its heart an anti-God view. </p><p></p><p>It comes down to who do we believe, God and His Word or the godless and their theories.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dig4truth, post: 73119352, member: 357420"] Thanks for the response. I'm no expert either, and apparently my typing skills are rather lacking. Yes, indirect evidence. We must assume some things when evaluating indirect evidence. I don't discount it but it is not in the same ballpark as observational evidence. Observational evidence can be tested and repeated. Yes, but ideas are just that until you can test them. What I am trying to state here is that many people have "ideas" that necessarily exclude God from the equation. I would not suggest listening to these people. "We know" is a strange expression for theoretical ideas. That's kinda my point. Many of the "evidences" that point to the modern theories can only be derived by very exclusive means that are not available to the general public. Most of these people hold to the new "science" that says that God can NEVER be the answer. In other words, most of mordern science has at its heart an anti-God view. It comes down to who do we believe, God and His Word or the godless and their theories. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What “is” a radio signal-?
Top
Bottom