Both Theists and Atheists have the same evidence
ilbe...@gmail.com
out of nothing when it didnt have to .2. We have a Universe with over
250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
called Earth.3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
existing life and not arise spontaneously.4. LIfe consists of
thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).5. LIfe
which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.6. Life which
cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
Creator has been at work , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism
is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
Creator to even exist (?)
Davej
> [...]
So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
WORD OF GAWD.
Pombolo
1) Assumption of a reason: "When it didn't have to..."
2) Fine tuning is a retrospective judgment - not a fact.
3) Simply false.
4) Non-sequitur. The bracketed sentence does not follow from the
previous one.
5) No spin on this one? How strange.
6) Name me a single irreducibly complex organism.
7) Fossils are FOUND. There are no neon signs pointing out the
location of buried fossils around our entire planet so that people can
dig them up and have a complete record. Oh, and there is enough DNA
evidence alone to prove evolution without the fossil record.
Your second paragraph is simply a series of assertions masquerading as
fact.
This whole post seems to imply false equivalency - "We are looking at
the same stuff... so our methods of understanding it must be the
same!". You are unable to separate your observations from what you
MAKE of those observations.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
ethics than the 10 Commandments , for instance, that is found in The
Bible ? Why would you have a disdain toward such things assuming you
believe morals and ethics are important ?
Fred Stone
427e-9033-9...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
There is nothing special about the ten commandments. Four of them don't
even mean anything outside of your religion. The rest are not unique to
your book of fairy tales.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support
of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw
Davej
A "higher set of morals and ethics" than the Bible? How many people
are killed in the Bible? How many babies and children are killed? What
does the Bible say about slavery?
Nomen Publicus
Is your "personal Theistic Creator" the same entity as my "personal Theistic
Creator" (if I believed in such tosh.) If the same, how could it be
demonstrated to a third person?
--
Atheist: One who denies, or disbelieves in, the existence of gods.
phil k.
IlBe...@gmail.com scribbled:
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being out of nothing when it didnt
> have to.
We may not know the law that forced the universe into existence, but
saying "it didn't have to" is a biased statemant. You might even be right,
maybe it was like tossing a coin and there were two or more possible
equiprobable outcomes. Maybe our universe was even to most improbable
outcomes of all the possible outcomes -- but guess what: the universe is
there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpFbUI7T6Yk&fmt=18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo&fmt=18
2. We have a Universe with over 250 fine tuned , life
> enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet called Earth.
Life evolved on this planet, so is it any wonder we are fit to live here?
> 3. LIfe that
> has been observed to arise only from existing life and not arise
> spontaneously.
And therefore GODDIDIT. Abiogenis is pretty much backed up by experiments
about now. Google it. Oh wait, let me help you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SgnnV8nV9g&fmt=18
> 4. LIfe consists of thousands and even millions of volumes
> of empirically detectable specified complexity as found in DNA
> information/messages (and is therefore more than just the non living
> chemicals it contains).
Define information. And if we find a messages that's decodes as "Made in
Garden Eden", then we talk again.
> 5. LIfe which changes cyclically and only within
> a limited range.
And when a big upheaval happens like the extinction of the sauriers due to
an impact of a comet life changes dramatically. Or in some oceans where
our extreme fishing made more room for jellyfish -- and they are using the
space.
Evolution only works in small population as in small population chances
are higher that a mutation=(a random new "information") will be
bequeathed. A big population is relativly constant. That's why human will
not evolve anymore (or only some tribes in the rain forrest we haven't
discovered yet). It's a shame isn't it? We always be that prone to
superstition. I really don't like that thought.
> 6. Life which cannot be built or modified gradually (IE:
> irreduciblecomplexity).
Name one. If you say "bacterial flagellum" you will be slapped hard!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
> 7. Life that leaves a fossil record of fully
> formed ecreatures that appear suddenly, do not change, and then disappear
> suddenly.
Huh?
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
> macroevolution, is true.
Define macroevolution. If you are saying that no species can evolve into
another you fail. (And no, it's not like that a monkey gave magically
birth to a human, as this most likely is your misconception of macro-
evolution)
But that's what you guys don't understand about evolution, that it is a
gradual, slow process. There are almost no jumps anywhere, or if they
occur, they are almost always disadvantageous for the individual. Ask
people with the Down's syndrome.
> And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> Creator has been at work ,
No. I just recently catched a cold. I had to cough even though the slime
wasn't cough-upable yet. Intelligent my ass.
> not 'Natural Causes' which imply no purpose,
> no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward Humankind ;
Yes, they imply that. It's a cold world out there.
> yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is portrayed in the daily
> life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism is true, there should be
> no confirmation thereof.
A living being that likes to live is more likely to not kill itself, isn't
it?
> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist (?)
It's not about wanting anything, it's about the evidence, and to which
conclusion the evidence leads us to. Feel free to delude yourself, but I
happen to care if what I believe, what I supose to be true, is actually
true.
--
Greetings from the proud Warthog
Greg G.
Buddhist and Hindu literature have a higher set of morals.
The Bible endorses slavery and even allows you to beat a slave to
death without penalty if they suffer a day or two before dying.
The Bible doesn't have a problem with sacrificing children as long as
it isn't to another god. The Bible commands you to stone your child
for being sassy.
The Bible spells out a way to make a temporary indentured servant into
a permanent slave. You give him a wife so he can start a family. When
it comes time for him to be free, he must choose between his wife and
kids or to become a permanent slave. That's a real good lesson in
family values in that book, right there!
What is righteousness in God's eyes? Noah was the best in the pre-
Flood world. Right after, he got drunk, took his clothes off, and
cursed one son's descendants because the son saw him naked. Lot was so
righteous God sent two angels to warn him to get out of Sodom. When a
mob wanted to meet the angels, Lot offered his two daughters to be
gang raped. Later, Lot got drunk, knocked his daughters up and accused
them of date rape. Elijah was supposed to be the most righteous of all
in the OT and didn't die but was taken up into Heaven. A bunch of kids
once called him "Baldy" so he called down two bears to maul the
children.
The Bible is the most repugnant thing in the world to base a standard
of morals.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> This whole post seems to imply false equivalency - "We are looking at
> the same stuff... so our methods of understanding it must be the
> same!". You are unable to separate your observations from what you
>
> - Show quoted text -
In order ; 1. Even an atheist has to admit that all we have doesnt
need to exist, due to the atheistic thought of Naturalism /
accidentalism without ultimate meaning. 2. Fine tuning of our Cosmos
has and continues to be definitively calculated by Scientists
regarding the critical tolerances of our established Physics Constants
which are ALL required for earth to be here so we can live on this
planet , and they are facts. Even agnostic Prof. Stephen Hawkins
agrees. If you desire to dismiss these as designs for a specific
purpose, then explain how they accidentally came into existence and
how they are sustained (?) 3.The law of Biogenesis states that life
only comes from life itself ; spontaneous generation was toally
disproved in the last century. Even Dawkins finally admitted first
life on earth required intelligent intervention. 4. Remove the
brackets then, and we still have chemicals that do not direct via
specified messages ; chemicals only react . 5. No spin required --
MicroBiology has proven there is no new info in the genome of a cell
which is needed for macro evolution to be plausible , ergo, there are
built-in restrictions/limitations to prevent such. 6.The Molecular
Machines found in a Cell are irreducibly complex. 7.Even Darwin
himself was puzzled why no intermediates werent found IN EVERY
geological formation and and every stratum . Gould even rejected the
gradualism of Darwinism (Source :'Towards a New Evolutionary
Synthesis' . Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 . 2000.Pages
27-32. ) . There should be BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of transitional
fossils , even in your own backyard , but there are none ... only
wild speculation with 'the latest finds' that fizzle and/or were
deliberate hoaxes as in the Monkey Men . The second paragraph is a
logical rational conclusion based on the scientific evidences that
exist ; its what One would expect if special-Creation were true
(unless One comes to the table with an aprior-philosophical bias that
automatically disqualifies a personal Creator from the start). The
'same stuff' has been around for a long time but perhaps a prejudiced
Mind and Heart doesnt wish to see the evidences for what they truly
are . They are not MY observations...they are modern scientific
verified FACT which both sides can consider --- does your Model of
Naturalism and Materialism reflect the Facts we have ? Hardly ; if
your Model were true , the evidence would vastly differ . Are there
some personal ulterior motives why you dont want a personal Theistic
Creator to even exist for our personally-crafted Universe (?!)
Pink Freud
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12dfa1d6-346d-4feb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 8:10 am, Pombolo <int...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 1:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
"Even Dawkins finally admitted first
life on earth required intelligent intervention."
Then you'll have no problem quoting a cite, will you?
Nomen Publicus
The _secular_ legal statutes of almost any western country have more
morality and ethics than any biblical passage or passages. Why? Because we
are not living in a bronze age tribal society where is is both legal _and_
moral to own slaves and kill members of the tribe who live over the hill.
--
Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
phil k.
> Hardly ; if your Model were true , the evidence would vastly differ .
For the sake of an argument:
Please tell me what would be different if our model was true?
To safe you here on repeat:
> should be BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of
> transitional fossils , even in your own backyard , but there are
> none ...
This just is wrong. Fossilization is not a thing that happens to every
dead animal. We can be happy that it has happened to so many that we
actually can understand things. And to your "transitional fossil" thing:
What about the duckbill? It doesn't get more transitional than that. (And
technially speaking: Every animal either is a "transitional" one or it is
just the last one of its branch. A lot of sauriers (not all!) are in a
direct line with today's birds.)
Please tell me what would falsify the theory of a god?
Please tell me what would falsify the theory of /your/ god.
What had falsified all the other religions out there?
And finally: Which subspecies of the Christian homo faithful do you belong
to?
ilbe...@gmail.com
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Correct, i wont. It was in the documentary movie with Ben Stein right
at the end of it while the camera was on Dawkins.
Syd
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to .2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth.3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
> existing life and not arise spontaneously.4. LIfe consists of
> thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).5. LIfe
> which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.6. Life which
> cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
> Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
> suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
>
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation,
No.
PDW
Syd
ANYTHING has a higher moral and ethical set then the Bible, asshole.
PDW
phil k.
>> Then you'll have no problem quoting a cite, will you?
>
> Correct, i wont. It was in the documentary movie with Ben Stein right
Why don't you just say: The movie "Expelled -- No intelligence allowed".
> at the end of it while the camera was on Dawkins.
We didn't just wanted to know where he said he but /what/ he said.
But it's again a pleasure to help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
It's just a bad interview style about getting a honest answer and then
twist this answer to fit his own needs.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 8:04 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
> >> Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
> >> WORD OF GAWD.
>
> > Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
> > Bible ? Why would you have a disdain toward such things assuming you
> > believe morals and ethics are important ?
>
> The _secular_ legal statutes of almost any western country have more
> morality and ethics than any biblical passage or passages. Why? Because we
> are not living in a bronze age tribal society where is is both legal _and_
>
> --
> Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
The Founding Fathers of the nation you live in, didnt think so at
all ! Why dont you read the 10 Commandments again, and ask
yourself if these would produce greater civility and protection of a
Nations peoples versus the philosophical tenets of atheism/humanism
that has oneself deciding what is right from wrong (if at all) . In
case you havent noticed, ever since America became a secularized
nation , it has become morally degraded at an alarming rate according
to statistics. IE: 1 in 4 women will be sexually abused sometime
during their life . So much for the glorification of Media-induced
sexual 'freedom' which is grooming our Youth for advanced sexual
hedonism with its resulting consequences of death by 2 std's in
conjunction with 31 others of which most are permanent.
ilbe...@gmail.com
> > On Jul 3, 8:04 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
> >> Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
> >> WORD OF GAWD.
>
> > Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
> > ethics than the 10 Commandments , for instance, that is found in The
> > believe morals and ethics are important ?
>
> The _secular_ legal statutes of almost any western country have more
> morality and ethics than any biblical passage or passages. Why? Because we
> are not living in a bronze age tribal society where is is both legal _and_
> moral to own slaves and kill members of the tribe who live over the hill.
>
> --
> Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
Quote : "Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't
believe in Mother Goose"
REPLY: " I dont believe in atheists because they were not made that
way' -- God.
Syd
Then your lying. That episode was edited to make Dawkins appear to say
that.
You lose.
PDW
Pombolo
Has he really just responded by simply *re-asserting* all his previous
assertions all over again?
What goes throught the mind of these people?
Mr. B
> need to exist, due to the atheistic thought of Naturalism /
> accidentalism without ultimate meaning.
So? It exists, that is a fact. Why does there need to be a reason for it
to exist?
> 2. Fine tuning of our Cosmos
> has and continues to be definitively calculated by Scientists
No, the values of physical constants are calculated by scientists. "Fine
tuning" is a euphemism sometimes used to indicate that if a constant had a
different value, the universe would be a much different place. It is not
meant to imply that there is some sort of grand reason for the physical
constants to have the values that they have.
> regarding the critical tolerances of our established Physics Constants
> which are ALL required for earth to be here so we can live on this
> planet , and they are facts.
Actually, our understanding of physics has not yet reached a level where we
can say for sure what would happen if the physical constants had different
values. It may be the case that it is impossible for the physical constants
to have different values, and that the entire point is moot.
However, our understanding of evolution is developed enough that we can make
informed predictions on what life would be like if the earth was different.
If the earth was further from the sun, and thus colder, life would have
evolved to survive with less heat. If the earth were closer, and thus
warmer, life would have evolved to take advantage of the additional heat
energy. If the earth were more massive, we would have evolved to be
stronger and to survive higher pressures on our bodies. If the earth were
less massive, we would have evolved to be smaller and to reproduce faster.
All of the above are assuming that despite the variation, there was still
solid land, liquid water and an atmosphere on the earth.
> Even agnostic Prof. Stephen Hawkins
> agrees. If you desire to dismiss these as designs for a specific
> purpose, then explain how they accidentally came into existence and
> how they are sustained (?)
A common mistake is to measure an event and then talk about how unlikely it
was to have happened. Even assuming that the physical constants could have
been different, they are not -- they are exactly what they are. An easier
example to comprehend is a dart thrown at a dartboard: the probability of a
dart landing on any specific point on the board is 0 (since there are
infinitely many points; I am assuming an equal chance of landing anywhere on
the board), but the dart still lands somewhere on the board. Choosing the
point that the dart landed on and declaring, "Wow! There was a probability
of 0 that this would happen!" is a mistake, because it *did* happen. The
probability of 0 only implies that the dart will not land on exactly the
same point if you throw it at the dartboard again.
Likewise, the physical constants: they are what they are. Talking about
how unlikely it is that the constants are what they are when they could have
been something else is wrong on a number of levels, but the first is that it
is assuming that there is something special about an unlikely event
occurring. You would not want to bet on it happening again, but once it
already happened, then there is no point in talking about how unlikely it
was.
> 3.The law of Biogenesis states that life
> only comes from life itself ; spontaneous generation was toally
> disproved in the last century.
This is a model. In fact, even if you do not accept abiogenesis, you still
need to abandon this model when you talk about the "start of life," unless
you claim that life itself has always existed. Suppose God really did
create life -- that would also be life arising from non-life, at least life
as we know it (which involves being bound by physical laws, which God
clearly is not bound by or we would be able to observe Him).
> Even Dawkins finally admitted first
> life on earth required intelligent intervention.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what Dawkins said. Dawkins said it was
certainly possible that some intelligent, extraterrestrial life had designed
life on Earth, but that that being itself would have had to have been a
product of evolution. Do not misconstrue what he said; the documentary did
a good enough job of misrepresenting him, you do not need to add to it.
> 4. Remove the
> brackets then, and we still have chemicals that do not direct via
> specified messages ; chemicals only react .
Which is what all biological processes are: chemical reactions. Reactions
that are controlled by other chemicals, but reactions nonetheless. Chemical
reactions are mediated in natural, non-living processes all the time;
spontaneous forest fires, for example, which are mediated by geological
formations.
> 5. No spin required --
> MicroBiology has proven there is no new info in the genome of a cell
> which is needed for macro evolution to be plausible , ergo, there are
> built-in restrictions/limitations to prevent such.
Now you are resorted to complete fabrications? R. Lenski proved the exact
opposite with his experiments on bacteria.
> 6.The Molecular
> Machines found in a Cell are irreducibly complex.
No, they are just too complicated for you to understand how they could have
possibly evolved. The proteins in molecular machines may very well have
served another purpose earlier in the evolution on that cell; this is an
active field of research among biologists.
> 7.Even Darwin
> himself was puzzled why no intermediates werent found IN EVERY
> geological formation and and every stratum .
Puzzled by, because the theory (including theories on geology) was not as
well developed. The fact that a scientist does not understand something
does not mean that it must be false. We do not run around claiming to have
all the answers; if we did, they would be no need for research.
> There should be BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of transitional
> fossils ,
Where do you get that from? Fossils break very easily. They get covered by
other rocks and crushed all the time. They can be eroded by wind and water.
They can fall with other rocks in landslides. They can sink under tectonic
plates like any other rocks.
Most importantly, though, is that not all living things fossilize. The
conditions for fossilization are not that common. We do occasionally find
transitional fossils, but you creationists just declare there to be two more
gaps in the evolutionary record when we do.
> even in your own backyard , but there are none ... only
> wild speculation with 'the latest finds' that fizzle and/or were
> deliberate hoaxes as in the Monkey Men .
Where are you getting this from? The number of hoaxes is small compared to
the number of legitimate transitional fossils that have been found.
> The second paragraph is a
> logical rational conclusion based on the scientific evidences that
> exist ; its what One would expect if special-Creation were true
> (unless One comes to the table with an aprior-philosophical bias that
> automatically disqualifies a personal Creator from the start).
Would demanding evidence for the existence of such a creator count as an a-
priori bias? The key thing that your "theory" is missing is the proof that
such a creator ever did exist. All you have is an ancient book filled with
the mythology of the middle eastern culture from 2000 years ago. You might
as well quote from the Odyssey.
-- B
phil k.
> Quote : "Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't
> believe in Mother Goose"
> REPLY: " I dont believe in atheists because they were not made that
> way' -- God.
Assuming God exists, and you presented just no evidence for Her.
Child: Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Santa Claus: No presents for you anymore!
You see the idiocy of such play on words?
Pink Freud
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:693283da-da68-4495...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
You mean where he was asked to come up with the most likely scenario that
would have taken place *if* there was an intelligent intervention which
created life? Where his answer was a hypothetical which did NOT involve ANY
theistic influence at all? You mean that one?
Isn't false witness frowned on in the Bible? Doesn't it make you feel
ashamed when you lie?
Budikka
> out of nothing when it didnt have to
There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
Yet "I'llBeBalked" would rather outright LIE about it. But who can
blame him? it's the onyl thing he's good at after all.
2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth.
Again, proven LIAR "I'llBeBalked" would rather LIE about things than
address them honestly., here we see his unsupported assumption that
the constants are finely tuned for *Earth*, without offering a shred
of evidence.
Here we see his blind and stupid assumption that this is the only
universe and therefore it's remarkable for having these constants. He
doesn't even entertain the definite possibility that there could be an
infinity of universes, which would make this one entirely
unremarkable.
He doesn't even imagine that it's entirely unremarkable that only a
universe which could support intlelgient life would actually have
intelligent life capable of ponf\derign the unvierse. this has
nothing to dow ith any god.
3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
> existing life and not arise spontaneously.
No one but creation snits have ever claimed that life arose from
nothing.
4. LIfe consists of
> thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).
Outright LIE.
5. LIfe
> which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.
This isn't anyhting. It's not even a sentence.
6. Life which
> cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).
This is an outright LIE.
7.
> Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
> suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
This is an outright LIE.
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Budikka
WangoTango
9bd7d2...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, ilbe...@gmail.com says...
worship, I would say they are a poor example of anything other than a
religion trying to keep its' monopoly.
Do you think that people would not know that killing each other is wrong
if it weren't for your list of rules?
I mean, really......
Ken
Dumbfuck Dave is/was too stupid to reproduce...fortunately for the
human gene pool
Uncle Vic
wrote:
Nowhere does the bible or any other holy book command you to live and let
live, and that is the highest moral code one can have. The rest is
common sense, and wasn't even news 2500 years ago.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Brian E. Clark
@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, ilbe...@gmail.com says...
> Both Theists and Atheists have the same evidence
Yes: we both have zero objective evidence for the existence
of God. Atheists treat this absence of evidence as they
would any other. Theists act as if this lack of evidence
doesn't matter one jot, and carve a special exception for
their deity.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Uncle Vic
> Why dont you read the 10 Commandments again, and ask
> yourself if these would produce greater civility and protection of a
> Nations peoples versus the philosophical tenets of atheism/humanism
Not much for reading comprehension, are you? Why don't you re-read the
replies some of us took the time to write? Or did you even bother to read
them at all?
Uncle Vic
> On Jul 3, 9:28�am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
Why is an omnipotent god so easy to defeat?
Sanity's Little Helper
posteth:
> 1. We have a Universe
<SMACK>
You've been told: Get a clue or shut the flying fuck up, you ignorant
cocksucker.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
God (n)
A casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
impulses within the human brain, conflated with social and societal
expediencies, such as the division of labour and the wielding of authority,
resulting in a formal definition of a personification of an authority that
must not be questioned.
Not authentic without this signature.
Sanity's Little Helper
> On Jul 3, 8:04�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> �[...]
>>
>> So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
>> Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
>> WORD OF GAWD.
>
> Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
> ethics than the 10 Commandment
Yes. So can you. Go find it yourself, and in the meantime, STFU and FOAD,
as you've already been told to.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"God" is a casual and intellectually sparse rationalisation of nerve
Andrew
"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to
There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
(Budikka)
___________________________________________________
And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
the Creator.
Sanity's Little Helper
> On Jul 3, 9:28�am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote:
>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 8:04�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> > �[...]
>>
>>>> So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
>>>> Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
>>>> WORD OF GAWD.
>>
>>> Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
>>> ethics than the 10 Commandments , for instance, that is found in Theen
>>> Bible ? �Why would you have a disdain toward such things assuming you
>>> believe morals and ethics are important ?
>>
>> The _secular_ legal statutes of almost any western country have more
>> morality and ethics than any biblical passage or passages. �Why? Because we
>> are not living in a bronze age tribal society where is is both legal _and_
>> ymoral to own slaves and kill members of the tribe who live over the hill.
>>
>> --
>> Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
>
> The Founding Fathers of the nation you live in, didnt think so at
> all ! Why dont you read the 10 Commandments again, and ask
> yourself if these would
Woulda coulda shoulda.. yada... yada...
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy
Sanity's Little Helper
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why dont you read the 10 Commandments again, and ask
>> yourself if these would produce greater civility and protection of a
>> Nations peoples versus the philosophical tenets of atheism/humanism
>
> Not much for reading comprehension, are you? Why don't you re-read the
> replies some of us took the time to write? Or did you even bother to read
> them at all?
WillIBaullocks never reads anything properly unless it doesn't have any big
words in it.
duke
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>(Budikka)
Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
is the one and only.
Isn't God wonderful!!!!
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On Jul 3, 7:36�am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> � 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
Better luck next time, you big dud.
duke
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>out of nothing when it didnt have to.
Sure it did. God did it. Or else the universe has intelligence of it's own.
Mr. B
> that.
It was not even that bad -- although Ben Stein certainly tried to portray
him that way, he did not edit out the bit about the designer itself being a
product of evolution. What is hilarious is that creationists take this run-
of-the-mill misrepresentation, and then further misrepresent it until they
have a gross distortion of what Dawkins actually said. This is basically
what the movie was intended to do: shield Stein from accusations of
misrepresentation, but leave open the possibility of others doing the
misrepresentation for him.
We all lose.
-- B
Mr. B
> at the end of it while the camera was on Dawkins.
Have you even seen that documentary? I have. Dawkins does not say that
there must have been a designer; he said that it is a possible explanation
for the beginning of life on earth, but that the designer itself would have
been a product of evolution, and that at some point life would have had to
have started without a designer.
Please stop misrepresenting what people say, it weakens your argument and
lowers the world's opinion of you and your ideology (incredibly, it is still
possible to have a lower opinion than we do already).
-- B
John Locke
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>out of nothing when it didnt have to...
>
..yes it did..nothingness is inherently unstable.
>snip the rest of the re-hashed nonsense<
_______________________________________________________________
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school
children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around
their necks instead of crosses." [Lenny Bruce]
Uncle Vic
> On Jul 3, 9:19�am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@here.com> wrote:
>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:12dfa1d6-346d-4feb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>> ... On Jul 3, 8:10 am, Pombolo <int...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 3, 1:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> "Even Dawkins finally admitted first
>> life on earth required intelligent intervention."
>>
>> Then you'll have no problem quoting a cite, will you?
>
> Correct, i wont. It was in the documentary movie with Ben Stein right
> at the end of it while the camera was on Dawkins.
>
And Dawkins made no such admission. His answer to the origin of life was
spot on, "we don't know". He mentioned for all we know we could have
come about at the whim of some intelligent life form elsewhere in the
universe, but even they would need to have "come about" somehow. Stein
twisted this to mean "god", and this demonstrates his inability to
comprehend Dawkins' argument, which boils down to this: if god created
the universe, who created god? Religious twats can't seem to wrap that
around their tiny brains, can they? The origin of life is an unanswered
question, much like gravity. Except knowing the origin of gravity
wouldn't threaten their faith.
Uncle Vic
> "Budikka" wrote in message
> news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com..
> . "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
> (Budikka)
> ___________________________________________________
>
> And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
> the Creator.
>
And you know this how, exactly? Try to stay within the realm of reality,
if you attempt to answer.
Dan Listermann
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6c-dnYHvAsKJstPX...@earthlink.com...
Discover or imagine?
Dan Listermann
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Budikka" wrote in message
>>news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>(Budikka)
>
> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for
> her.
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing
> rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big
> crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the
> universe
> is the one and only.
Maybe, maybe not?
John Baker
wrote:
>"Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Fucking imbecile.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Baker
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 3, 8:04�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > �[...]
>>
>> So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
>> Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
>> WORD OF GAWD.
>
>Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
>ethics than the 10 Commandments , for instance, that is found in The
>Bible ? Why would you have a disdain toward such things assuming you
>believe morals and ethics are important ?
You've apparently never actually read your book o' bull, Davey. A
child-raping serial killer has a higher set of morals and ethics than
are set forth in your "holy book."
raven1
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>out of nothing when it didnt have to .
Implied special pleading fallacy. If the universe needs a creator, why
doesn't God? And if God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe.
BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution.
>2. We have a Universe with over
>250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
>called Earth
For about the fourth time, bullshit. List them. BTW, this has nothing
to do with evolution.
>3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
>existing life and not arise spontaneously.
Conditions are vastly different now than they were when life first
arose. BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution.
>4. LIfe consists of
>thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
>specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
>therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).
Define "specified complexity". By what metric is it measured?
>5. LIfe
>which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.
This means what?
>6. Life which
>cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).
How does one demonstrate "irreducible complexity", other than by a
fallacious argument from personal incredulity?
>7. Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures
What would a partially formed creature look like?
> that appear
>suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
Wrong.
>
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
>macroevolution,is true.
An honest look at your points above suggests you have absolutely no
clue as to what you're talking about. The first three have nothing to
do with evolution, the fourth is meaningless jargon, the fifth says
nothing, the sixth is fallacious, and the seventh is flat-out wrong.
>And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
>Creator has been at work ,
It suggests that if there is a highly intelligent creator, he didn't
pass much of that intelligence on to you.
> not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
>purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
>Humankind ;
Which is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.
> yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
>portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism
>is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
Which, even if true, would also be irrelevant.
>Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
>Creator to even exist (?)
I don't care either way, but I'm not inclined to believe in one
without actual evidence. And by evidence, I don't mean logically
fallacious assertions from someone who continually shows himself to be
scientifically illiterate.
Nomen Publicus
> On Jul 3, 9:19�am, "Pink Freud" <somewh...@here.com> wrote:
>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> On Jul 3, 1:36 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Even Dawkins finally admitted first
>> life on earth required intelligent intervention."
>>
>> Then you'll have no problem quoting a cite, will you?
>
> Correct, i wont. It was in the documentary movie with Ben Stein right
> at the end of it while the camera was on Dawkins.
>
Bollocks. He was addressing the the possibility that _aliens_
could have created life on earth. See
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think
of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have
occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of
imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best
shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling
magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of
Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking
about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified
intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this
is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist
creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel
their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to
accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God,
this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could
for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like
Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was
charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking
enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could
conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another
planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi
tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the
highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible
for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to
have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to
quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE
explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by
intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was
itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be
terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of
the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just
spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole
point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by
natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can
ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes
everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into
the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again
and again in my writings."
--
Mel Gibson isn't known for being faithful to the original source.
His remake of The Life of Brian is rubbish. -- Michael C
John Baker
Apparently some don't know it's wrong even *with* a list of rules...
John Baker
>Even Dawkins finally admitted first
>life on earth required intelligent intervention.
Dawkins admitted no such thing, you lying sack of shit.
Do you honestly believe you can lie through your teeth with impunity
the way you do and nobody will know it? That everyone will just take
your word for it? Ain't gonna happen, Skippy.
Now get your horseshit out of alt.atheism while you still have an
account to post it from.
John Baker
My opinion of Liar Dave - and of creationists in general - couldn't
possibly be any lower than it is already.
>
>-- B
John Baker
<int...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Has he really just responded by simply *re-asserting* all his previous
>assertions all over again?
That's all he ever does. It's all he has.
>
>What goes throught the mind of these people?
What mind?
Ken
> Not much for reading comprehension, are you? Why don't you re-read the
> replies some of us took the time to write? Or did you even bother to read
> them at all?
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
Ever notice that most, if not all of Dimwit Dave's replies have little
or
nothing to do with the original post or, after someone made a
detailed and carefully crafted challenge to one of his rants, there's
no reply, or that he never answers a direct question, instead going
off
on some tangent about Dog, sex, or religion completely unrelated to
the subject with the intent to gain control of the thread and push
HIS
point of view?
Well, there a good reason for all this:HE NEVER READS THEM
In his puny mind, why should he?
He knows that whatever is said will not with his views so why even
bother.
If he actually reads them. or thinks about them logically, he might
need to examine the basis for his own religious delusions so, again
why even bother
It's much better, in his mind, for him to just push his views than to
waste valuable trolling time reading replies to his endless stream of
bullshit
"Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?"
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give
you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've
still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And
I
want to help you."
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL"
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
"I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!"
"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye
Ben Kaufman
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
>macroevolution,is true.
<SNIP>
An honest look at the facts suggests it is futile to use facts and logic with
Creationists.
Ben
Uncle Vic
John Baker
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:43:49 -0400, "Mr. B" <n...@supplied.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Correct, i wont. It was in the documentary movie with Ben Stein
>>>> right at the end of it while the camera was on Dawkins.
>>>
>>>Have you even seen that documentary? I have. Dawkins does not say
>>>that there must have been a designer; he said that it is a possible
>>>explanation for the beginning of life on earth, but that the designer
>>>itself would have been a product of evolution, and that at some point
>>>life would have had to have started without a designer.
>>>
>>>Please stop misrepresenting what people say, it weakens your argument
>>>and lowers the world's opinion of you and your ideology (incredibly,
>>>it is still possible to have a lower opinion than we do already).
>>
>>
>> My opinion of Liar Dave - and of creationists in general - couldn't
>> possibly be any lower than it is already.
>
>Lower than this?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ndb276
Yep. Even lower than that. <G>
Ken
nothing worth quoting
>
> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan-AmeriKKKan
Syd
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> > out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
> (Budikka)
> ___________________________________________________
>
> And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
> the Creator.
No.
PDW
Bill M
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>
> Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing
> rate.
> It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
Ken
>
> A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
What else could we possibly expect from Puke?
Bill M
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
> <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>out of nothing when it didnt have to.
>
> Sure it did. God did it. Or else the universe has intelligence of it's
> own.
Science has never claimed or presented evidence that the Univers came into
being from nothing!
The scientific opinion has been that the Universe expanded from a
'singularity' - not from nothing.
Get an education Duke.
"God did it" What OBECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE do you have that ANY God
actually
exists and that any God did it?
Your wild claims are only evidence of your religious stupidity!
Ralph
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>
> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
> is the one and only.
>
>
> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
No Puke, the expansion of the universe is accelerating now but there is
nothing to say that the expansion won't
slow in the future.
Having said that, even if your premise is true that doesn't prevent
other universes.
Smiler
Yep. Once they've reached the bottom of the barrel, where else is there for
them to go?
--
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all individually tailor
made to perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer.
Father Haskell
> On Jul 3, 8:04 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So be a Deist -- I don't care. Just don't pretend that the Bible or
> > Qur'an or some other old rubbish is the OFFICIAL DIVINE LAWBOOK AND
> > WORD OF GAWD.
>
> Can you show a different source that has a higher set of morals and
> ethics than the 10 Commandments , for instance, that is found in The
> Bible ? Why would you have a disdain toward such things assuming you
> believe morals and ethics are important ?
It also says I can't eat pork products or mow the lawn
on the sabbath (which even the faithful can't agree upon).
Smiler
> IlBe...@gmail.com scribbled:
>
>> Hardly ; if your Model were true , the evidence would vastly differ
>> .
>
> For the sake of an argument:
>
> Please tell me what would be different if our model was true?
>
> To safe you here on repeat:
>
>> should be BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of
>> transitional fossils , even in your own backyard , but there are
>> none ...
>
> This just is wrong. Fossilization is not a thing that happens to every
> dead animal. We can be happy that it has happened to so many that we
> actually can understand things. And to your "transitional fossil"
> thing: What about the duckbill? It doesn't get more transitional than
> that. (And technially speaking: Every animal either is a
> "transitional" one or it is just the last one of its branch. A lot of
> sauriers (not all!) are in a direct line with today's birds.)
>
> Please tell me what would falsify the theory of a god?
>
> Please tell me what would falsify the theory of /your/ god.
>
> What had falsified all the other religions out there?
>
> And finally: Which subspecies of the Christian homo faithful do you
> belong to?
The Cretinus Maximus subspecies.
Smiler
>>
> ..yes it did..nothingness is inherently unstable.
>
Exactly like his 'mind'.
chibiabos
<12dfa1d6-346d-4feb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
<"IlBe...@gmail.com"> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:10�am, Pombolo <int...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 1:36�pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > � 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> > > out of nothing when it didnt have to .2. We have a Universe with over
> > > 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> > > called Earth.3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
> > > existing life and not arise spontaneously.4. LIfe consists of
> > > thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> > > specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> > > therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).5. LIfe
> > > which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.6. Life which
> > > cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).7.
> > > Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
> > > suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
> >
> > > �... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
> > > macroevolution,is true. And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> > > Creator has been at work , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
> > > purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
> > > Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
> > > portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism
> > > is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
> >
> > > Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> > > Creator to even exist (?)
> >
> > 1) Assumption of a reason: "When it didn't have to..."
> >
> > 2) Fine tuning is a retrospective judgment - not a fact.
> >
> > 3) Simply false.
> >
> > 4) Non-sequitur. The bracketed sentence does not follow from the
> > previous one.
> >
> > 5) No spin on this one? How strange.
> >
> > 6) Name me a single irreducibly complex organism.
> >
> > 7) Fossils are FOUND. There are no neon signs pointing out the
> > location of buried fossils around our entire planet so that people can
> > dig them up and have a complete record. Oh, and there is enough DNA
> > evidence alone to prove evolution without the fossil record.
> >
> > Your second paragraph is simply a series of assertions masquerading as
> > fact.
> > t
> > This whole post seems to imply false equivalency - "We are looking at
> > the same stuff... so our methods of understanding it must be the
> > same!". You are unable to separate your observations from what you
> > MAKE of those observations.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In order ; 1. Even an atheist has to admit that all we have doesnt
> need to exist, due to the atheistic thought of Naturalism /
> accidentalism without ultimate meaning. 2. Fine tuning of our Cosmos
> has and continues to be definitively calculated by Scientists
> regarding the critical tolerances of our established Physics Constants
> which are ALL required for earth to be here so we can live on this
> planet , and they are facts. Even agnostic Prof. Stephen Hawkins
> agrees. If you desire to dismiss these as designs for a specific
> purpose, then explain how they accidentally came into existence and
> how they are sustained (?) 3.The law of Biogenesis states that life
> only comes from life itself ; spontaneous generation was toally
> disproved in the last century. Even Dawkins finally admitted first
> life on earth required intelligent intervention. 4. Remove the
> brackets then, and we still have chemicals that do not direct via
> specified messages ; chemicals only react . 5. No spin required --
> MicroBiology has proven there is no new info in the genome of a cell
> which is needed for macro evolution to be plausible , ergo, there are
> built-in restrictions/limitations to prevent such. 6.The Molecular
> Machines found in a Cell are irreducibly complex. 7.Even Darwin
> himself was puzzled why no intermediates werent found IN EVERY
> geological formation and and every stratum . Gould even rejected the
> gradualism of Darwinism (Source :'Towards a New Evolutionary
> Synthesis' . Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 . 2000.Pages
> 27-32. ) . There should be BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of transitional
> fossils , even in your own backyard , but there are none ... only
> wild speculation with 'the latest finds' that fizzle and/or were
> deliberate hoaxes as in the Monkey Men . The second paragraph is a
> logical rational conclusion based on the scientific evidences that
> exist ; its what One would expect if special-Creation were true
> (unless One comes to the table with an aprior-philosophical bias that
> automatically disqualifies a personal Creator from the start). The
> 'same stuff' has been around for a long time but perhaps a prejudiced
> Mind and Heart doesnt wish to see the evidences for what they truly
> are . They are not MY observations...they are modern scientific
> verified FACT which both sides can consider --- does your Model of
> Naturalism and Materialism reflect the Facts we have ? Hardly ; if
> your Model were true , the evidence would vastly differ . Are there
> some personal ulterior motives why you dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist for our personally-crafted Universe (?!)
Do the homeskooled have a problem with paragraphs?
You decide.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
walksalone
news:030720091809461639%ch...@nospam.com:
> In article
> <12dfa1d6-346d-4feb...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> <"IlBe...@gmail.com"> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 8:10�am, Pombolo <int...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 3, 1:36�pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
snip mental masturbation by lonesome dave.
>> what they truly are . They are not MY observations...they are modern
>> scientific verified FACT which both sides can consider --- does
>> your Model of Naturalism and Materialism reflect the Facts we have ?
>> Hardly ; if your Model were true , the evidence would vastly differ
>> . Are there some personal ulterior motives why you dont want a
>> personal Theistic Creator to even exist for our personally-crafted
>> Universe (?!)
>
> Do the homeskooled have a problem with paragraphs? [1]
Not that I have noticed. Their problem is with language & communicating
without grunts. Which of course, leads to the grammatical skills of the
uneducated.
> You decide.
Do I really have to, haven't I been puniushed enough if I read their
attempts to glorify theirselves?[2]
walksalone who was naive enough to assume xians were at least capable of
discussiong their myth, until I joined the alt.atheism newsgroup.
[1] Says the master of the overly long sentance.
[2] After all, nightmares are not required, & no one should have to try &
cipher gibberish over once. As to glorifying their god, only if that god
wasnts excessikvely stupid followers, which in the US it has, to publicly
whine to others about it.
Budikka
> "Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> > out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> (Budikka)
> ___________________________________________________
>
> And that part of "reality that many have yet to discover" is
> the Creator.
And now when I ask you to actually support your flaccid statement with
OBJECTIVE or SCIENTIFIC evidence, you will run away.
Watch everyone.
See Andrew.
See Andrew RUN.
RUN, RUN, RUN, Vacuous Chicken Andrew.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >"Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> >> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> >There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> >the universe came out of. It could well have been nothing (after all,
> >there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> >previous universe or from a part of reality we have yet to discover.
>
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
> is the one and only.
Notice how Duck Egg Duke lays a big fat duck egg again in his flaccid
and ultimately doomed attempt to come to grips with reality?
Notice how he employs scientists to "support" him here, but when
scientists provide evidence which overturns one of his beliefs (such
as a global flood, for example), then these same scientists are
utterly unreliable, ignorant, or stupid? LoL!
That's why Duck-Egg Duke is a hypocrite.
Notice how Duck-Egg Duke is so ill-educated and ignorant of science
that he cannot even imagine what I was talking about, so he's reduced
to inventing a LIE about what I said and addressing that, instead of
actually addressing what I said?
That's why Duck-Egg is a LIAR.
Notice that I said nothing about a big crunch or about this universe
reversing its expansion, yet Dishonest Duke invents his own straw man,
fails to demolish that, then assumes victory?
Thank you Duck Egg Dick head Dumb-Ass Duke for proving why you're the
Internet's most useless object.
Budikka
duke
>On Jul 3, 11:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >"Budikka" wrote in messagenews:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> >"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>> >> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>> >There's your first LIE. �In your first sentence. We don't know what
>> >the universe came out of. �It could well have been nothing (after all,
>> >there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>> >previous universe or from a part of reality we have yet to discover.
>>
>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. �But then again, that's nothing new for her. �
>>
>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. �Hence, the universe
>> is the one and only.
>Notice how Duck Egg Duke lays a big fat duck egg again in his flaccid
>and ultimately doomed attempt to come to grips with reality?
Science does you in every time, dud the dickehad [sic].
>Notice how he employs scientists to "support" him here, but when
>>scientists provide evidence which overturns one of his beliefs (such
>as a global flood, for example), then these same scientists are
>utterly unreliable, ignorant, or stupid? LoL!
Science hasn't done that, you big dud. What you can't come to grips with is
that science is God's gift to mankind.
>That's why Duck-Egg Duke is a hypocrite.
>Notice how Duck-Egg Duke is so ill-educated and ignorant of science
>that he cannot even imagine what I was talking about, so he's reduced
>to inventing a LIE about what I said and addressing that, instead of
>actually addressing what I said?
No big crunch, you big dud. Maybe you should pay attention to more scientific
sites rather than the vacant lot between your ears.
>That's why Duck-Egg is a LIAR.
Oh, dud, why don't you just admit that you're not near as bright as you think
you are.
>Notice that I said nothing about a big crunch or about this universe
>reversing its expansion, yet Dishonest Duke invents his own straw man,
>fails to demolish that, then assumes victory?
Sure you did - here's your words: "but it could also have arisen form a
previous universe". The big crunch is the likely scenario.
>Thank you Duck Egg Dick head Dumb-Ass Duke for proving why you're the
>Internet's most useless object.
>Budikka
Many people laugh at you, dud.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Budikka" wrote in message
>>>news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>>
>>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>>(Budikka)
>>
>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for
>> her.
>>
>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing
>> rate,
>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big
>> crunch.
>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the
>> universe
>> is the one and only.
>
>Maybe, maybe not?
Yet the current mass and the ever expanding say one and only. For a big crunch
in the past, where did the mass, which is the key, go? It's not there now.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>> (Budikka)
>>
>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
>>
>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
>> is the one and only.
>>
>> Isn't God wonderful!!!!
>No Puke, the expansion of the universe is accelerating now but there is
>nothing to say that the expansion won't
> slow in the future.
Where's the mass? Distance is increasing. Each day takes more and more mass.
>Having said that, even if your premise is true that doesn't prevent
>other universes.
Only to a scientific dumbass as yourself.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:4ics45l2ncb27puiv...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>>
>>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>
>> Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing
>> rate.
>> It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
>
>A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
Really!!!!! YOU........are a totally unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion.
duke
>On Jul 3, 9:32�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>nothing worth quoting
I accept your accolades for my scientifically powerful statement.
duke
Between you and willie, I don't see the technical knowledge to fit on the head
of a pin. And you are living proof of that.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:crcs45t2k8ol2d83b...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:36:44 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
>> <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>out of nothing when it didnt have to.
>>
>> Sure it did. God did it. Or else the universe has intelligence of it's
>> own.
>
>Science has never claimed or presented evidence that the Univers came into
>being from nothing!
Yes they have. They admitted that an infinitely small point of mass of infinite
density existing in nothingness is the big bang. I allow your postulation as to
what was there before the sudden explosion.
>The scientific opinion has been that the Universe expanded from a
>'singularity' - not from nothing.
>Get an education Duke.
Mine is science based. What is your's based on?
>"God did it" What OBECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE do you have that ANY God
>actually
>exists and that any God did it?
Prove you have thoughts.
>Your wild claims are only evidence of your religious stupidity!
And it ties you in knots every time. Reject the big bang.
Mr. B
> rate, thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a
> big crunch.
The fact that the expansion rate is currently increasing does not mean that
it will always increase. We still do not fully understand the physics of
gravity and how it interacts with the other forces, nor do we understand
what is causing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. Perhaps at
some point, the rate will decrease and eventually reverse -- this is all
purely speculative, we really do not know or have any sort of model for
explaining it.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the
> universe is the one and only.
You cannot say that for sure. Maybe a previous big bang/big crunch system
had more mass and less radiation, or maybe it was completely different. We
really cannot say, because we do not have a complete understanding of how
the big bang happened.
> Isn't God wonderful!!!!
From where do you derive "God exists" -- there is nothing in any of what you
said that indicates that at all. No surprise, of course, since there is
nothing in the entire universe that indicates it.
-- B
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
4c20-89fc-f...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> out of nothing when it didnt have to.
How do you know it was "nothing"? We have no such evidence, so you can't
use it on your side.
Disallowed.
> 2. We have a Universe with over
> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
> called Earth.
Life isn't fine-tuned. It's chaotic and messy.
> 3. LIfe that has been observed to arise only from
> existing life and not arise spontaneously.
Wrong.
> 4. LIfe consists of
> thousands and even millions of volumes of empirically detectable
> specified complexity as found in DNA information/messages (and is
> therefore more than just the non living chemicals it contains).
Life is nothing more than chemistry. Even you are just a bunch of
chemicals.
> 5. LIfe
> which changes cyclically and only within a limited range.
...as dictated by environment.
You really don't understand things like facts. You're obviously missing
come chemicals in that brain thing of yours, and have too much of one
called dope-amine.
> 6. Life which
> cannot be built or modified gradually (IE: irreduciblecomplexity).
There's no such thing as "irreducible complexity." Life is constantly
modifying--ADAPTING--itself gradually to its environment.
It's called EVOLUTION.
> 7.
> Life that leaves a fossil record of fully formed creatures that appear
> suddenly, do not change, and then disappear suddenly.
They disappear suddenly because they die out. Comets, meteorites, and
monster volcanoes have a way of doing that.
>
> ... An honest look at the facts suggests creation, not
> macroevolution,is true.
No, it doesn't, my chemically-deficient acquaintence.
And it suggests a highly intelligent personal
> Creator has been at work , not 'Natural Causes' which imply no
> purpose, no ultimate meaning, nor infinite worth or dignity toward
> Humankind ; yet intrinsic self worth, dignity, and meaning is
> portrayed in the daily life of an atheist , when in reality if atheism
> is true, there should be no confirmation thereof.
That shows that you don't know anything about atheism.
> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal Theistic
> Creator to even exist (?)
Reality is much more interesting without bringing imaginary friends
along.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication
aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Diploma Mill: a religious facility where minds are ground into powder.
Ken
Nothing worth quoting, as usual
Puke.............AmeriKKKan AmeriKKKan
Syd
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:14:21 +0100, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >news:4ics45l2ncb27puiv...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Jul 3, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> >>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>
> >>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
> >>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
> >>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
> >>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>
> >> Nope, no previous universe as the universe is expanding at an increasing
> >> rate.
> >> It lacks the mass to reverse, and hence couldn't not have reversed before.
>
> >A totally unsubstantiated and unscientific 'opinion'!
>
> Really!!!!! YOU........are a totally unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion.
>
Says the 'person' who believes the ultimate pseudoscience-
Creationism.
PDW
duke
>On Jul 4, 6:33�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Nothing worth quoting, as usual
It's all over your head. That's why you don't quote it.
Dan Listermann
There is much about black holes that we don't understand yet. Yet it is
very obvious that all deities sprout from the imaginations of humans.
ironjustice
> You mean where he was asked to come up with the most likely scenario that
> would have taken place *if* there was an intelligent intervention which
> created life? Where his answer was a hypothetical which did NOT involve ANY
> theistic influence at all? You mean that one?
>
> Isn't false witness frowned on in the Bible? Doesn't it make you feel
> ashamed when you lie?
Lying comes with the Xtian's territory.
They just can't help themselves
John Smith
You're years behind in your (alleged) education.
Such assertions were true until they discovered "dark matter".
Christopher A. Lee
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
>> 2. We have a Universe with over
>> 250 fine tuned , life enabling,constants for this tiny remote planet
>> called Earth.
>
>Life isn't fine-tuned. It's chaotic and messy.
Heck, most of the Earth won't support human life - high mountains,
deserts, Antarctica, the oceans.
We fine tune ourselves to live in many places, at its most basic with
clothes. Beyond that with heating and cooling.
Ralph
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:25:32 -0400, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Budikka" wrote in message news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>>> There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>>> the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>>> there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>>> previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>>> (Budikka)
>>> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for her.
>>>
>>> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,
>>> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big crunch.
>>> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the universe
>>> is the one and only.
>>>
>>> Isn't God wonderful!!!!
>
>> No Puke, the expansion of the universe is accelerating now but there is
>> nothing to say that the expansion won't
>> slow in the future.
>
> Where's the mass? Distance is increasing. Each day takes more and more mass.
Read a good scientific paper on dark energy and get back to me.
>> Having said that, even if your premise is true that doesn't prevent
>> other universes.
>
> Only to a scientific dumbass as yourself.
Funniest statement you've ever made, Puke.
Budikka
> On Jul 3, 9:32 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> nothing worth quoting
>
>
>
As you can see, even after I directly explained it to him in detail,
he's still too stupid to grasp it! He's still too dumb to understand
that all he's done is attack his own straw man. He hasn't even begun
to address what I actually wrote! He's blindly convinced that this is
the only universe and that Big Bang - Big Crunch is all that could
ever happen!
That's why he's not worth talking to. He actually gets more stupid
with each passing month. Back in the past (but even then only once in
a while) he would, perhaps purely by accident, make some sort of half-
sense in an occasional thing he posted. Now he makes no sense at all
in anything he posts. That senile dementia is a killer isn't it?!
(At least I assume it is!)
Budikka
Budikka
<gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9f6a8114-38ae-
> 4c20-89fc-fb6005ba4...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > 1. We have a Universe that came into being
> > out of nothing when it didnt have to.
>
> How do you know it was "nothing"? We have no such evidence, so you can't
> use it on your side.
Actually, when you think about it, if there was quite literally
nothing before this universe began then what was there to prevent the
universe beginning? Quite literally nothing! If there was literally
nothing - no laws of physics, nothing at all - then there wasn't
anything to stop literally anything happening no matter how bizarre
we, in this limited universe, bound as we are by some tough physics
laws, may consider it.
That's what creation snits and fundies just don't get.
Budikka - Taking the fun out of fundamental....
Budikka
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:q7mu45dr7acevcm0u...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:12:28 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
Duck-Egg thinks that dark matter is just another name for Satan...!
Budikka
Lisbeth Andersson
news:5oe1i6-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk:
> IlBe...@gmail.com <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
>>
>> Is there a personal reason why people dont want a personal
>> Theistic Creator to even exist (?)
>
> Is your "personal Theistic Creator" the same entity as my
> "personal Theistic Creator" (if I believed in such tosh.) If the
> same, how could it be demonstrated to a third person?
>
The first step would be if you both agreed on what that "Theistic
Creator" is. :-)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
Dr. Omgorna Hackenslash MD
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:obcs45hjcktma08oj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:17:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>
>>"Budikka" wrote in message
>>news:03d3150b-a962-4173...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>"IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. We have a Universe that came into being
>>> out of nothing when it didnt have to
>>
>>There's your first LIE. In your first sentence. We don't know what
>>the universe came out of. it could well have been nothing (after all,
>>there was nothing to prevent it) but it could also have arisen form a
>>previous universe or from a part of relaity we have yet to discover.
>>(Budikka)
>
> Nope, bud the dud blows it again. But then again, that's nothing new for
> her.
>
> According to the scientists, the universe is expanding at an increasing
> rate,
> thereby establishing that it lacks the mass to reverse itself; ie, a big
> crunch.
> And, as it lacks the mass now, it lacked the mass before. Hence, the
> universe
> is the one and only.
>
Which God? There are at least 10,000 known gods out there.