Changes

::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.

::::::::::::Thanks for citing creationweb.com when it comes to Galileo. It says that Galileo tried to console his findings with the bible. And he did this by offering an alternative interpretation. Exactly what I told you before. Thanks for proving my point.

::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, if someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position.

::::::::::::Martin Luther was a Christian, right? If Christianity would be good predictor, he should agree with other Christians on this matter, especially since Martin Luther probably knew the bible better than most. But he didn't. He disagreed with many other clerics that defended Copernicanism. So, again, that someone was a Christian predicts nothing about their position in these matters.

:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.

:::::::::::: "And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change." Thanks for admitting that the existence of a deity has no effect whatsoever on the universality of natural laws. It could be this way, it could be that way.

::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not  "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.  

::::::::::::Thanks for being condescending about my ability to grasp an idea. But lets face it. Under the reign of Pope XXI you would have been a heretic. To say that God could not  "change the laws of nature on a whim" was one of the forbidden positions on the list compiled by Bishop Tempier in 1277. The view which you call essentially Christian, was actually a position that was heavily inspired by the Greeks, and it was considered basically pagan. So, a position that you say is essential Christian, was fundamentally heretic at that time.  

::::::::::::No, scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".  But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::No, scientist argues that what you call irreducibly complex emerged by "chance". It emerged by the opposite of "chance".  But to paraphrase yourself, given your inability to grasp the concept of "chance", I'll take your comment with a grain of salt.[[User:Order|Order]] 23:19, 3 February 2008 (EST)