religious programming.
Arrh
Nobody expects the religious programming
religious programming.
Really? I think someone can also be oppose a mathematical definition simply because they are not very smart.I also believe that opposition to a mathematical definition can only arise from thorough religious programming.
So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?I think someone can also be oppose a mathematical definition simply because they are not very smart.
So what are all the possible motives of opposers to a mathematical definition that aren't very smart?
If I were to explain the definition of limits to a cousin of mine who has a rather low IQ, he would say that it makes no sense and he would oppose the notion. I don't see how motivation has anything to do with it.So what are all the possible motives of opposers to a mathematical definition that aren't very smart?
How about: So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?Try rewording please
what's the mathematical symbol for magic?So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
How about: So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
I prefer to invoke the greater power abbreviated QM.what's the mathematical symbol for magic?
Probably the same motives as ignorant, clueless creationists trying to create scientific-sounding justifications for their facile arguments.So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
Don't know, don't care.How about: So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
How about: So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
What we have here, folks, is one of Feynman's "Cargo Cults".I prefer to invoke the greater power abbreviated QM.
Atheistic fantasies are easy to refute. I grew up learning science and loving science long before I read and believed the New Testament gospels. Where is the inconsistency in believing in both science and Jesus Christ? What is inconsistent about The Fundamental Axioms of Seventh-day Millerites, Circa 2017?Creationists are acculturating to science. They are only to trying to recapture some of the respectability of science to replace their failing, inconsistent and contradictory religious doctrine and world view, like the primitive societies building those cargo crate aircraft.
Atheistic fantasies are easy to refute. I grew up learning science and loving science long before I read and believed the New Testament gospels. Where is the inconsistency in believing in both science and Jesus Christ? What is inconsistent about The Fundamental Axioms of Seventh-day Millerites, Circa 2017?
I think it's great you're finally asking the right questions, Eugene.Atheistic fantasies are easy to refute. I grew up learning science and loving science long before I read and believed the New Testament gospels. Where is the inconsistency in believing in both science and Jesus Christ? What is inconsistent about The Fundamental Axioms of Seventh-day Millerites, Circa 2017?
Nothing at all. He likely did exist.Where is the inconsistency in believing in both science and Jesus Christ?
No scientific evidence for immortal humans (axiom 4.) We will learn (and have learned) more than Jesus knew (axiom 8.) Nature, not God, causes natural disasters (axiom 11.)What is inconsistent about The Fundamental Axioms of Seventh-day Millerites, Circa 2017?
That's fine with me. An axiom is an axiom.No scientific evidence for immortal humans (axiom 4.)
The resurrected Christ has fully regained all of His original God-like powers. He is infinite; I am finite. And you are clearly finite.We will learn (and have learned) more than Jesus knew (axiom 8.)
Einstein summed up his feelings about quantum mechanics in the phrase, "Gott wurfelt nicht!" (God does not play dice)! Stephen Hawking replies, "But all the evidence indicates that God is an inveterate gambler and that He throws the dice on every possible occasion" (Black Holes and Baby Universes, p. 70). My response to Einstein's metaphysics used to be "God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats." I now believe that the quintessence of modern physics is best expressed in the New Living Translation of Proverbs 16:33. "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall."Nature, not God, causes natural disasters (axiom 11.)