Search:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/headlines/050297/jb_arjamesbutton.jpg

i don't have time to read it all, but this quote sounds an aweful lot like the creationist argument against evolution (particularly concerning the many mechanisms of evolution that have yet to be...

not if it had a beginning.

the stars that are farther away are not moving faster than the ones that are closer -- they were moving faster millions of years ago (when the light that we currently see came from them). it takes a...

lemme try again. the farther a star is away, the further back into time we are looking. the fact that the stars that are close to us (that we see more recently) are travelling more slowly than the...

the post you just quoted explains why i think the expansion is slowing down, but i will try to be a little more clear. redshift refers to the change in color of the light coming from stars due to...

i know what redshift is. i don't need wikipedia for that. one thing it tells us is that when the stars further away from us were in the position that we see them now, they were travelling much...

they are now travelling faster than the speed of light?! reference, please.


you still haven't explained why flat necessarily means boundless. it is conceivable that a flat universe could be...

and while you're at it, salty, go ahead and explain to me why a "flat" universe necessarily means an infinite universe.

thanks in advance.

well, i read about half of that and it looked like just one long saltydawg post -- a whole lot of difinitive statements with nothing to back them up.

if you are so sure this is the case, then please explain to me what evidence convinced you?

you should not state things as fact because one scientist (or group of scientists) says so. i doubt that the majority of scientists agree with that conclusion (or even a large minority).

and i...

so in other words, you don't know. it is as johnny has said.

how is it that the wmap satellite confirms this?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
i love it when salty starts listing statistics!

please explain how you calculated this probability.

increase in entropy may in some cases result in more complex-looking structures, but how much entropy must a molecule give up in order to replicate itself?

the problem is that science can never prove creation. all it can do is point out how unlikely it is that everything happened by chance.

the other problem is that if you are unwilling to...

you may or may not be right on your 99%. i really don't care. the facts and my faith depend not on what some people in history (often controlled by corrupt church leadership) believed.

here is a quote supposedly from De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. i got it from wikipedia, and i obviously don't own the text to check it against, so i can only assume, in the abscense of...

1. yes. that is what i said.

2. it was long enough ago that i was having trouble remembering whom it was about, much less where i read it.

3. qouted below:

the bold part, in...

i made no broad, sweeping statements. even if i'm wrong about augustine, the fact remains that deviation from what we were taught about scripture does not constitute deviation from scripture. ...

the ones we should emulate, anyway.



so SAINT augustine was guilty of DAMNABLE HERESY?

or do you admit that deviating on interpretation does not constitute a deviation from absolute...

it does matter because you made a statement that is clearly not true. if you have read augustine and own some of his works, then you obviously have more access to the information than i do. all i...

sorry, don't have time for that. but i'm more than willing to read if you have any semi-original thoughts on the subject.

ironic that you make this post (quoting st. augustine of hippo) in reference to this statement:

i started to respond to this original post, but held my tongue -- er, keyboard -- because i couldn't...