John Smithson wrote:
>I do not view the biblical message as law.
I know, but a great portion of the Biblical message is law. That is part of
the problem in the discussions you have with Izzy. You only view part of
the Biblical message while she is looking at the bigger picture.
Let me rephrase: the biblical message is not to be considered "law" by those who live after the cross.
John Smithson wrote:
>She changed the subject for no logical reason.
>Not a good example of perceptiveness.
As I explained in the previous post, I thought she had very good logical
reason. Maybe she is more perceptive than you are.
There is a difference, David, between assertion and explanation. You made an assertion with no viable explanation, preferring, rather, to carry the discussion of course -- perhaps out of a sense of positional weakness (ahhh - I just did a DM. See how it works?) As I see it, there is no good reason for changing subjects in the middle of a discussion. You would disagree, of course, because that is an important part of your debate tactic. A good example is "Maybe she is more perceptive than you are." Although this might be an accurate assessment, this observation has nothing to do with the discussion. Suddenly, we have completely lost tract of the original discussion and have moved into the phase where the respondent must defend against the accusations of the plantif.
Gee --- time has told its tale.
John Smithson wrote:
>there is a TOE but it is not a mathmatical equation.
How do you know that? Without math, Einstein never would have developed his
theories of relativity. I think any TOE would have to be mathematical in
order to be predictive, which is the goal of every theory.
I do not "know." Neither do you. It is just that some very good men (Einstien and Hawkins for example) could not come up with the "solution." Einstein was a believer of sorts in God. And that is why he continued his search for a mathmatical and unifying solution. If such were discovered, an equation showing a relationship between the world of the large and the world of the very small, it could be argued that nothing was proven except that one came from the other -- a progression and extension of evolutionary theory. And, although we might argue this philosophical claim -- the "fact" of the matter is, IMO, the TOE will be found in the postulated and philosophical truth that God is the only consideration that unifies Relativity to Quandum Dynamics - or man to man or man to Himself or love to hate or that which is reducible to that which is not. Do I dare critsize Eistein? Oh, you betcha. If for no other reason than the fact that he had such pathetic hair.
John
