Profile_bird

Hey there! Adam4004 is using Twitter.

Twitter is a free service that lets you keep in touch with people through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What's happening? Join today to start receiving Adam4004's tweets.

Already using Twitter
from your phone? Click here.

Default_profile_6_bigger
Adam4004

  1. @askegg I was pointing out how your TOE required your eternal nature to organize itself. In mine the eternal creat (cont) http://tl.gd/193lk about 6 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  2. @askegg Its almost impossible in a tweet. Here is one for design I borrowed from DI. “the theory that certain fe (cont) http://tl.gd/193kt about 6 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  3. @askegg Sorry. But you are conflating nature being eternal (we will posit that for a second) with being organized. (cont) http://tl.gd/193hj about 6 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  4. @hellzballer That u have faith that it somehow did doesn't either. about 7 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to hellzballer
  5. @askegg No. The designer didn't organize himself. Eternal remember? His nature is "unknown". about 7 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  6. @askegg Actually let's turn that around. Not dodging but I think the person holding to no design would have the mo (cont) http://tl.gd/193a3 about 7 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  7. @askegg So it always existed an organized itself into all that we see? Perhaps. But given what I observe about nature left to itself.. about 9 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  8. @MarcPearton Have a good sleep about 9 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  9. @MarcPearton Of course. We both ate starting in same boat. That was my point about inference.:) about 9 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  10. @askegg You examine which is more likely. Design or nondesign. about 9 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  11. @MarcPearton You name the data & it fits very well into our framework. about 9 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  12. @MarcPearton Who said one? Actually we can examine the evidences for a creator & also the numerous aspects of the framework & model posited. about 9 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  13. @askegg No. I meant your scientific view you hold to. I'm assuming you believe that a tweet is too short. about 10 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to askegg
  14. @MarcPearton Sure. The account which matches up incredibly well with what we observe notes only one. about 10 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  15. @MarcPearton You have proven my point about inference. Except you allow some when it matches your preferred view & exclude when it doesn't. about 10 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  16. @MarcPearton We can observe & infer can't we. about 11 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  17. @MarcPearton So you infer. You can't meet the standard u demanded of ours with ur most basic level. about 11 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  18. @MarcPearton No. The pk to ek about 11 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  19. @MarcPearton How do u know? What test showing it? about 11 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton
  20. @MarcPearton You saw that? That's what many propose. But you can't test nor did u observe about 11 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to MarcPearton