Here's the biggest reason why Evolution is a laughable concoction by Atheists, for Atheists...
old man joe
simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
the Atheists make the claim that Darwin's idea of Evolution does not need a starting point is
exactly where the fun begins. to promote Evolution as something all living things have in common
requires a starting point. this, they studiously avoid.
the Atheists default immediately to cursing man and God when required to show from their brand of
science exactly how life came from elements that are not alive... after all, for Evolution to be
true, the second living thing had to evolve out of the first living thing. Evolution doesn't want
to say they have no answer of how the first living thing came into existence.
here we have their science giving us what is called The Periodic Table. nothing in it is alive.
yet, our physical bodies comprise amounts of certain of these elements. botta-bing... a dead human
being has exactly the same elements as does a living person but one is dead and the other is alive.
no elements of the Periodic Table are alive... ya get it, boys ? no elements of the Periodic Table
are alive. these elements constitute our physical beings but we are alive and the dead person is
dead. life comes from the Living God, not Darwin; the Atheist explanation starts on the second
floor... no foundation.
before my Thanksgiving turkey evolved out of a dinosaur, as the Atheists once said on a Natgeo
program aired 2 years ago, the dinosaur had to evolve out of something alive, and it, from something
alive... all the way back to the very first living thing which these Atheists, at this point, go off
on a tangent.
at this point, the starting point, nothing on earth is alive.
botta-bing ! non-living elements came together in just the right way and gave life to itself. this
is all made possible from the early earth environment other geniuses have concocted, not Darwin.
molten, poisonous gaseous early earth, absolute sterility talk, cooled off over time, which is not
alive either, and lo and behold, non-living elements came together in just the right way and gave
life to itself which makes Atheists very happy and able now to think that don't have the wrath of
God and Judgment Day hanging over their head's.
dream on, boys.
now, watch the cursing of God and man begin since they can not refute that God is the Giver of life,
which they already know because He made Himself evident to them, rendering them " without excuse "
as we read in Ro. 1:18-20.
Mark Evans
(SNIP RANT)
You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
its creator came from. It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
from nothing or was itelf created. Som OMJ, which is it? A creator
coming form nothing or being creatred? Or are you simply wrong.
Mark Evans
Ken
Pink Freud
"old man joe" <ne...@home.001> wrote in message
news:ba2ot5hfecm8kbqrs...@4ax.com...
>
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a
> rock.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
>
So, is your hypothetical god alive, or dead?
If it's alive, where the fuck did it come from?
If it's dead, then who gives a fuck about it?
raven1
wrote:
>
>simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
>
>and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
Then why is your "God" exempt from this? Idiot.
L.Roberts
What, pray tell, is the best alternative to 'evolution'? Magic?
Performed by a 'genie thingy'?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What is it with you wilfully pig-ignorant, aggressively stupid,
dishonest, deluded lying morons who are in complete denial about the
real world?
>simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out
>of a rock.
Nobody ever said you could, imbecile.
>and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
Liar.
Even without abiogenesis plants still convert minerals to living
matter.
>the Atheists make the claim that Darwin's idea of Evolution
Evolution is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa. So why do you
keep repeating this lie, lying liar who lies through his teeth?
It is a set of observations that won't go away no matter how many
lying creationists like you lie through their teeth about it, lying
liar.
Darwin merely gave the first scientifically derived explanation for
it.
And research to confirm or refute it shoed not just that he was right
but led to who new sciences and technologies that wouldn't even exist
without it. Including genetics, biotech, forensic use of DNA etc. And
genetics even led to the discovery of a second mechanism for evolution
- genetic drift.
>does not need a starting point is exactly where the fun begins.
It doesn't, lying liar who lies through his teeth. It is the observed
change and divergence of life over time.
>to promote Evolution as something all living things have in common
>requires a starting point.
It says nothing about how life originated, liar.
That is abiogenesis - a parsimonious label for life from non-life.
Which is a completely different field, and part of biochemistry not
biology, liar.
As long ago as the 1950s amino acids and other building blocks of life
were shown to be produced by natural processes BY SCIENTISTS, and it
is nothing to do with atheism or vice versa.
Followed by the production of simple proto cells BY SCIENTISTS who
applied heat amino acids resulting in thermal proteins, and then
immersing the residue in salt water. More natural processes. So they
knew it happened, but not how or why.
More recently Jack Szostak has been researching the how and the why,
producing these results in his lab at Harvard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Watch this, show you have understood it and ASK intelligent questions
instead of lying about it.
> this, they studiously avoid.
The only people avoiding anything are lying creationists like you,
lying liar who lies through his teeth.
>the Atheists default immediately to cursing man and God
Liar.
> when
>required to show from their brand of science exactly how life
IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM, LIAR.
>came from elements that are not alive... after all, for
Explained to you several times. You just can't stop lying, can you?
>Evolution to be true, the second living thing had to evolve
>out of the first living thing. Evolution doesn't want
>to say they have no answer of how the first living thing
>came into existence.
Liar.
>here we have their science giving us what is called The Periodic
>Table. nothing in it is alive.
Nothing to do with evolution, liar.
>yet, our physical bodies comprise amounts of certain of these
>elements. botta-bing... a dead human being has exactly the same
>elements as does a living person but one is dead and the other
>is alive.
Good thing that's just your dishonest straw man, serial liar.
>no elements of the Periodic Table are alive...
SO FUCKING WHAT?
>ya get it, boys ? no elements of the Periodic Table
>are alive. these elements constitute our physical beings
>but we are alive and the dead person is
>dead.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
> life comes from the Living God,
What "Living Good", question-begging imbecile?
It takes a fucking moron to insist to people outside his religion,
that its god did anything.
> not Darwin;
The only people who say it did, are lying creationists putting words
into other people's mouths.
> the Atheist
>explanation starts on the second
>floor... no foundation.
What "atheist explanation" are you lying about, lying liar who lies
through his teeth?
>before my Thanksgiving turkey evolved out of a dinosaur, as the
>Atheists once said on a Natgeo program aired 2 years ago, the
SCIENTISTS, many of whom are Christian, not atheists, liar.
AND THEY EXPLAIN HOW THEY REACH THAT CONCLUSION - from genetics,
comparative morphology, protein chemistry and paleontology.
>dinosaur had to evolve out of something alive, and it, from s
>omething alive... all the way back to the very first living thing
>which these Atheists, at this point, go off
>on a tangent.
Liar.
Again, SCIENCE *C*O*N*C*L*U*D*E*S* THIS, and it is nothing to do with
atheism.
Dinosaur evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/user/djarm67#p/c/887668013730BFEE
>at this point, the starting point, nothing on earth is alive.
That's why it's called abiogenesis, imbecile.
>botta-bing ! non-living elements came together in just the right
>way and gave life to itself. this is all made possible from the
>early earth environment other geniuses have concocted, not Darwin.
IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH DARWIN, IMBECILE.
Watch the frikking videos about abiogenesis.
>molten, poisonous gaseous early earth, absolute sterility talk,
>cooled off over time, which is not alive either, and lo and behold,
>non-living elements came together in just the right way and gave
Watch the frikking videos, liar.
>life to itself which makes Atheists very happy and able now to
Liar.
>think that don't have the wrath of God and Judgment Day hanging
>over their head's.
Why do you imagine anybody gives a thought to somebody else's
religion's threat?
Face it, are you scared of being reincarnated as a maggot for not
being a good little Hindu?
Are you really, honestly this stupid?
>dream on, boys.
It's your strawman, lying liar who doesn't stop lying through his
teeth.
>now, watch the cursing of God
Liar.
> and man begin since they can not
>refute that God is the Giver of life,
Liar.
>which they already know because He made Himself evident to them,
Liar.
>rendering them " without excuse "
>as we read in Ro. 1:18-20.
What kind of fucking moron imagines the scripture of somebody else's
religion has any authority for people outside that religion?
Ken
> What kind of fucking moron imagines the scripture of somebody else's
> religion has any authority for people outside that religion?
A creationut moron, but that's being a bit repetitive, isn't it
JayPee Vee
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
"Ho!" <whack>
Uncle Vic
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of
> a rock.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
And your conclusive evidence for this is?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
"The Bible talks about the first rainbow after the Great Flood, and we see
rainbows in the sky today. This is proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ
and the existence of God." - Zacharias Mulletstein
Joe Bruno
Burkhard
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
Funnily enough, not according to Christian folklore;
http://www.libraryireland.com/Wonders/Bleeding-Stone.php
But my guess is that the spoilsport atheists are not going to believe
it.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
>
> the Atheists make the claim that Darwin's idea of Evolution does not need a starting point is
> exactly where the fun begins.
> to promote Evolution as something all living things have in common
> requires a starting point. this, they studiously avoid.
Well, what is maybe vaguely funny is your misunderstanding of the
theory of evolution. Evolution did indeed need a starting point.
Everything does. The theory of Evolution by contrast is a scientific
framework that explains only a small part of reality, to wit, why we
have a huge diversity of species which nonetheless have a recurring
pattern of similarity between them.
For this theory, it is neither necessary, nor indeed helpful, to
explain how life came into being.
Linguistic theories of vowel change that explain how modern English
evolved from Germanic languages do not need to describe where language
comes from, or even the history of Germanic languages.
The history of the United States does not need to describe how
Britain was colonised by Celtic tribes.
Explaining and teaching the laws of baseball does not require to
describe or explain the laws of cricket, despite baseball being a
corrupted form cricket.
An architect or bricklayer know how bricks can be used to build a
house, but they don't need to know, and often do not know, how rock
formation happens, let alone about the Big Bang
etc etc etc
>
> the Atheists default immediately to cursing man and God when required to show from their brand of
> science exactly how life came from elements that are not alive... after all, for Evolution to be
> true, the second living thing had to evolve out of the first living thing.
Indeed, which should answer your question, really: the theory of
evolution explains things only after there is life,
Evolution doesn't want
> to say they have no answer of how the first living thing came into existence.
>
Evolution is a natural process and doesn't say much, anyway.
Evolutionary biologists, in their professional capacity are quite
happy to say that the theory of evolution has no answer to, and indeed
not much interest in, the question how life came into existence. Some
of them will be aware though of the fascinating research that other
scientists do in that field.
> here we have their science giving us what is called The Periodic Table. nothing in it is alive.
> yet, our physical bodies comprise amounts of certain of these elements. botta-bing... a dead human
> being has exactly the same elements as does a living person but one is dead and the other is alive.
and a diamond has exactly the same elements as a pencil. And a house
has exactly the same elements as a rock quarry. With other words,
"Having the same elements as" is a necessary, but not sufficient
condition for "being the same as".
>
> no elements of the Periodic Table are alive... ya get it, boys ? no elements of the Periodic Table
> are alive. these elements constitute our physical beings but we are alive and the dead person is
> dead. life comes from the Living God, not Darwin; the Atheist explanation starts on the second
> floor... no foundation.
>
> before my Thanksgiving turkey evolved out of a dinosaur, as the Atheists once said on a Natgeo
> program aired 2 years ago, the dinosaur had to evolve out of something alive, and it, from something
> alive... all the way back to the very first living thing which these Atheists, at this point, go off
> on a tangent.
You are confusing the theory of evolution, a scientific theory, with
atheism, an attitude to metaphysics. Evolutionary biologists, be they
Christians, Hindus or atheists, have no direct involevement with the
question of the origins of llife.
>
<snip>
All-Seeing-I
What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
understand?
Wombat
Since you snipped the relevant phrase what does that tell us about
your (tenuous) grasp on this thread?
Wombat
Virgil
old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
>
> the Atheists make the claim that Darwin's idea of Evolution does not need a
> starting point is
> exactly where the fun begins.
Since Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began, there is
no possible such beginning that could falsify Evolution.
Those who claim otherwise have no understanding of science.
[snipped "omj"'s further variations on that disabled theme]
Virgil
<154c08c0-4604-4f0a...@g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> Charles Darwin was not an atheist:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views
In his later life he certainly had some doubts.
Virgil
<ad30f766-893f-4770...@e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
How is your question in any way relevant to whether the theory of
evolution is a valid scientific theory or not?
Mark Evans
Nothing. What part of "how does the creator myth fit in" don't you
get? If the creator is alive where did he, she or it come from. If
not alive it violates the life from life mantra of creationists.
Claiming a supernatural creator just shows that you don't know enough
to answer the question. Now go back to your copy of Ancient
Manuscripts fo Dummies and ask for help with the big words.
Mark Evans
Mickey
He wrote in one of his books that he was an agnostic. So?
Joe Bruno
THis is from the wikipedia article:
Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that
he had never been an atheist
Mickey
> In article
> <154c08c0-4604-4f0a-9898-6304951da...@g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > Charles Darwin was not an atheist:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_religious_views
>
> In his later life he certainly had some doubts.
He was an agnostic and was very close to being
an atheist. As you say, he had doubts. The first url
is Darwin himself on his religious beliefs.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
http://www.nndb.com/people/569/000024497/
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be
denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is
bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man
as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the
laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of
the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth
both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that
grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the
result of blind chance. (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man)
How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd
religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know; nor how it is that
they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on
the minds of men; but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly
inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is
impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct;
and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed
independently of reason. (Charles Darwin, Descent of Man p. 122)
I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by
many persons as an argument for his existence. The idea of a universal
and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man,
until he has been elevated by long-continued culture. (Charles Darwin,
Descent of Man p. 612)
We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of
universes to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to
be created at once by special act. (Charles Darwin)
I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it
appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments
against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the
public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual
illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of
science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on
religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have
been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my
family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion. (Charles
Darwin)
http://www.darwin-literature.com/l_quotes.html
When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal
descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed
of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become
ennobled. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, quoted from John
Stear, No Answers in Genesis)
When it was first said that the sun stood still and world turned
round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but
the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [the voice of the people is the
voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in
science.
(Charles Darwin, reminding his readers that they should always treat
"obvious" truths with skepticism, in the context of the apparent
absurdity of evolving a complex eye through a long series of gradual
steps, in the famous passage added to later editions of the Origin of
Species (1872, p. 134), quoted from Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure
of Evolutionary Theory (2002), chapter 1, "Defining and Revising the
Structure of Evolutionary Theory," p. 1 (the bracketed translation is
Gould's)
Father Haskell
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
And you'll never get a holey ghost out of a church.
Grisha
death of his daughter was the last drop/straw. After that he
oscillated between atheism and agnosticism.
Budikka666
Item 1: http://tinyurl.com/mnkb94
Item 2: http://tinyurl.com/n9dcfh
Item 3: http://tinyurl.com/kt2exk
Item 4: http://tinyurl.com/mfztxy
Item 5: http://tinyurl.com/n596r7
Item 6: http://tinyurl.com/ncree3
Item 7: http://tinyurl.com/nqufcj
Item 8: http://tinyurl.com/p7vu8u
Item 9: http://tinyurl.com/lxjw29
Item 10: http://tinyurl.com/muapjy
Item 11: http://tinyurl.com/nvdqsz
Item 12: http://tinyurl.com/ovpe85
Item 13: http://tinyurl.com/ltk5fy
Item 14: http://tinyurl.com/loykqv
Item 15: http://tinyurl.com/koarf7
Item 16: http://tinyurl.com/lq5jwg
Item 17: http://tinyurl.com/oyjkpu
Item 18: http://tinyurl.com/qha55o
Item 19: http://tinyurl.com/l6e6u2
item 20: http://tinyurl.com/krp2g5
Here are 26 proofs of macroevolution, every one of which Liar Dave ran
from rather than give the scientific discussion he lied he would:
http://tinyurl.com/78y2p
666 items of strong evidence for macroevolution, every one of which
Liar Dave ran from rather than give the scientific discussion he lied
he would:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
Example 600: http://tinyurl.com/cujkx
Examples 601-608: http://tinyurl.com/bnflb
Examples 609-615: http://tinyurl.com/9pl7b
Examples 616-635: http://tinyurl.com/cqb3n
Examples 636-666: http://tinyurl.com/ay53o
"Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge" are not dodged at:
http://tinyurl.com/8d77u
And 10 questions creationists would rather dodge are dodged at:
http://tinyurl.com/7lvwr
And finally, a leading supporter of intelligent design is disowned by
his own university:
http://tinyurl.com/dydbr
And embarrassed on court on the topic:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
And finally, be sure to check Past It Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to
Winning Arguments to see how many of his rules he adhered to in this
"response":
http://tinyurl.com/e37pw
Bible Absurdities, Contradictions, and Lies, parts 1 - 8:
http://tinyurl.com/8bsws
http://tinyurl.com/aumcy
http://tinyurl.com/bpy24
http://tinyurl.com/b34ts
http://tinyurl.com/cfodb
http://tinyurl.com/974pu
http://tinyurl.com/77ga3
http://tinyurl.com/cjcp7
Evolution is supported by solid science. Intelligent design is
nothing
but tired religion. Read "Vital Dust" by Nobel laureate Christian de
Duve. Read about the many experiments that have produced organic
chemicals that are the basis of life. Read about how these same
chemicals are found in space.
Read about:
Abiogenesis:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm
Proto cells:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Factories of life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Smallest genome a lot smaller than smallest modern cell:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/febreleases/bioet...
Precambrian to cambrian:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html
Early diversification:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
Transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Primitive fish different:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/504776.stm
Fish with fingers:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/fishfossil0312.html
Snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/680116.stm
Ant-wasp evolution:
http://research.amnh.org/entomology/social_insects/publications/ms_sp...
Mosquitoes still evolving:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/158522.stm
Origins of flight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664541.stm
4-winged dinos:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2684927.stm
Dog evolution:
http://www.provet.co.uk/online/dogs/evolution%20of%20the%20dog.htm
Human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Computer simulated evolution:
http://necsi.org/postdocs/sayama/sdsr/
Evolution vs. creationism debates:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html
Evolution not "atheist religion":
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html
29 Evidences supporting evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The evolution of the eye:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
The woodpecker's tongue:
http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm
Radiometric dating - a Christian perpective:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page
Noah's ark never happened:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Ex-creationist on why young Earth creationism doesn't work:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/
Another ex-creationist:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
Creationists cannot define "kind":
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
Even evolutionists believe in God!:
http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1997/04/04/01.asp
General anti-creationism/pro-evolution FAQs:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html
http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/newindex.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/complexity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specif...
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm
http://vuletic.com/hume/cefec/index.html
Questionable creationist credentials:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Even dyed-in-the-wool creationists think a lot of their arguments are
bad:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Why There Is No God:
Parts 1-5 at: http://tinyurl.com/6uhnl
Part 6 at: http://tinyurl.com/3ms66
Parts 7-11 at: http://tinyurl.com/5yhjn
Part 12 at: http://tinyurl.com/5ndow
Parts 13-15 at: http://tinyurl.com/65x6g
Parts 16-25 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jmrq
Parts 26-42 at: http://tinyurl.com/4569y
Parts 43-50 at: http://tinyurl.com/6hkax
Parts 51-55 at: http://tinyurl.com/48abq
Parts 56-65 at: http://tinyurl.com/4a95v
Parts 66-70 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 70-78 at: http://tinyurl.com/3jyxg
Parts 79-90 at: http://tinyurl.com/6aa8l
Parts 91-99 at: http://tinyurl.com/6xnhh
Parts 100-119 at: http://tinyurl.com/9fcsw
Parts 120-139 at: http://tinyurl.com/bp8za
Parts 140-155 at: http://tinyurl.com/72vlr
Parts 156-170 at: http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb
Parts 171-174 at: http://tinyurl.com/8jcja
Parts 175-189 at: http://tinyurl.com/cuvxb
Parts 190-199 at: http://tinyurl.com/9uo6f
Parts 200-219 at: http://tinyurl.com/8tsrg
Parts 220-235 at: http://tinyurl.com/a9rc2
Parts 236-245 at: http://tinyurl.com/b9of7
Parts 246-254 at: http://tinyurl.com/cz9yq
Parts 255-280 at: http://tinyurl.com/aze8x
Parts 281-299 at: http://tinyurl.com/7dn3s
Parts 300-325 at: http://tinyurl.com/bj4mu
Parts 326-360 at: http://tinyurl.com/8unme
Parts 361-400 at: http://tinyurl.com/89tdu
Parts 401-500 at: http://tinyurl.com/8un3t
Parts 501-550 at: http://tinyurl.com/8snjp
Parts 551-600 at: http://tinyurl.com/nakgj
Parts 601-640 at: http://tinyurl.com/lrzuz
Parts 641-666 at: http://tinyurl.com/pjjg7
Budikka
Christopher A. Lee
He was Christian when he began his voyage, and over a long period of
time finished up agnostic.
But so what? What he believed is irrelevant to the facts he observed
and conclusions he researched.
Steve Knight
>On 1 May, 12:05, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
>> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
>>>
>> are alive.
So the answer is, a Magic Being picked up some dirt and exhaled life
into it.
You Christians are funny.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
All-Seeing-I
> On May 1, 1:59 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 8:32 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 7:05 am, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
>
> > > (SNIP RANT)
>
> > > You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
> > > its creator came from. It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
> > > life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
> > > from nothing or was itelf created. Som OMJ, which is it? A creator
> > > coming form nothing or being creatred? Or are you simply wrong.
>
> > > Mark Evans
>
> > What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
> > understand?
>
> Nothing. What part of "how does the creator myth fit in" don't you
> get? If the creator is alive where did he, she or it come from.
You assume the creator is alive as we understand life.
Now, If you want to believe that the creator is alive then read the
Sumerian tablets.
They think the creator was in fact alive as we know life. BUT even
this lesser-creator-god that susposedly created humans was still
created by the single Sumerian God, Anu.
So either way you look at it, be it from the hebrew or the sumerian
version, or even hindu version, there was a single creator of
everything. Different cultures call him by different names.
Islam calles it Alla
Hebrew calls it YHVH
Hindu calls it Braham
Christians call it God, Jehovah and others
Greeks called it Zeus
It is all the same God.
> If
> not alive it violates the life from life mantra of creationists.
How so?
> Claiming a supernatural creator just shows that you don't know enough
> to answer the question.
Are you trolling me? Or have you been hitting that peace pipe?
> Now go back to your copy of Ancient
> Manuscripts fo Dummies and ask for help with the big words.
The bible explains that if you pay attention.
God is, was, and always has been.
God has no begining, God has no end.
Alpha and Omega.
look it up
Pink Freud
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:eb7a34e0-7a3d-4b74...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 1, 3:14 pm, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 1, 1:59 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 1, 8:32 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 1, 7:05 am, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
>>
>> > > (SNIP RANT)
>>
>> > > You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
>> > > its creator came from. It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
>> > > life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
>> > > from nothing or was itelf created. Som OMJ, which is it? A creator
>> > > coming form nothing or being creatred? Or are you simply wrong.
>>
>> > > Mark Evans
>>
>> > What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
>> > understand?
>>
>> Nothing. What part of "how does the creator myth fit in" don't you
>> get? If the creator is alive where did he, she or it come from.
>
> You assume the creator is alive as we understand life.
>
What a fucking retarded thing to say.
Of COURSE he assumes that saying "the creator is alive" refers to "alive" as
we understand life.
What the fuck else is it supposed to be taken as?
This is just another example of you spewing forth vacuous bullshit in an
attempt to weasel your way out of the argument you just lost, isn't it?
Virgil
<eb7a34e0-7a3d-4b74...@l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Islam calles it Alla
> Hebrew calls it YHVH
> Hindu calls it Braham
> Christians call it God, Jehovah and others
> Greeks called it Zeus
>
> It is all the same God.
That presumes that any of those actually exist, which has never been
unequivocally established.
Only those whose unfounded assumptions require the existence of some
gods claim certainty that there are any.
SkyEyes
What part of "Where did your god come from?" did *you* not understand?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Virgil
<82627f8f-440d-4530...@g1g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 1, 10:59�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On May 1, 8:32�am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 1, 7:05�am, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
> >
> > > (SNIP RANT)
> >
> > > You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
> > > its creator came from. �It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
> > > life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
> > > from nothing or was itelf created. �Som OMJ, which is it? �A creator
> > > coming form nothing or being creatred? �Or are you simply wrong.
> >
> > > Mark Evans
> >
> > What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
> > understand?
What part of that is relevant? As far as I can see, the issue of how
life came into being and the issue of whether the theory of evolution
fits the fats are two entirely separate issues, and those who attempt to
conflate them are attempting to deceive us.
Glibb BecKKK
evreyone can see and/or touch, unlike the "beLIEf" in your heads only you
[crazy people] can, ass you say, "see" ...
--
At the RNC incest is priority-one because that's how the GOP got started, all
the way back to the Virgin Birth ;)
https://www.cafepress.com/YbeLIEve
Got Conscience?
Mickey
Who said that he was? He said himself that he was an agnostic.
Mark Evans
> On May 1, 3:14 pm, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 1:59 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 8:32 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 7:05 am, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
>
> > > > (SNIP RANT)
>
> > > > You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
> > > > its creator came from. It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
> > > > life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
> > > > from nothing or was itelf created. Som OMJ, which is it? A creator
> > > > coming form nothing or being creatred? Or are you simply wrong.
>
> > > > Mark Evans
>
> > > What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
> > > understand?
>
> > Nothing. What part of "how does the creator myth fit in" don't you
> > get? If the creator is alive where did he, she or it come from.
>
> You assume the creator is alive as we understand life.
>
willing to own up to the elements in the periodic chart being alive
but not as we understand life? Remember, creationists are the ones
who insist on this sharp line between living and nonlivein.
> Now, If you want to believe that the creator is alive then read the
> Sumerian tablets.
>
Hmm. Bringing in a non-Christian mythos to buttress your claims, eh.
I had no idea that you could read Sumerian. Oh, wait a minute. You
can't! How the explicative for fornication can you claim they support
anything you say since you are dependant upon an unknown number of
translations over thousands of years?
> They think the creator was in fact alive as we know life. BUT even
> this lesser-creator-god that susposedly created humans was still
> created by the single Sumerian God, Anu.
>
Ok then, was Anu alive or non-alive. If alive, who, or what, created
him/she/it/them?
> So either way you look at it, be it from the hebrew or the sumerian
> version, or even hindu version, there was a single creator of
> everything. Different cultures call him by different names.
>
> Islam calles it Alla
Nope. Try Allah
> Hebrew calls it YHVH
Actually it is not allowed to speak the name of the Hebrew god. Or
write it. Even in English. I know Jews who write G*D instead.
> Hindu calls it Braham
Um, no. Braham is a a creator but only one of an infinate series.
> Christians call it God, Jehovah and others
Some, maybe. Most take the creation myth with a large grain of salt
and identify it as the allegory it is.
> Greeks called it Zeus
>
Nope. Zeus was not a creator god. He was the son of a Titan, a race
of divine beings who predated the Olympian gods. Guess you never read
your Hesiod.
> It is all the same God.
>
A lot of blood has been shed over that idea and it is still not
resolved.
> > If
> > not alive it violates the life from life mantra of creationists.
>
> How so?
>
Lets be basic on this. If you have two mutually exclusive conditions
you only have two choices. What part of alive/not alive is hard for
you? It is like pregnant/not pregnant, light turned on/light turned
off, capable of thought/ASI.
> > Claiming a supernatural creator just shows that you don't know enough
> > to answer the question.
>
> Are you trolling me? Or have you been hitting that peace pipe? And trolling your is one fo the funniest ideas you have posted to date.
> > Now go back to your copy of Ancient
> > Manuscripts fo Dummies and ask for help with the big words.
>
> The bible explains that if you pay attention.
>
Actually the bible explains very little. You like to expand on what
is there and mix it with your fantasy concepts of what other legends
say and add a large dose of delusions and claim it is biblical truth.
Of course you can put lipstick on a chicken and say it is your wife
too.
> God is, was, and always has been.
>
> God has no begining, God has no end.
>
> Alpha and Omega.
>
> look it up
This is a nonsense statement and you know it. BTW, what does the
Greek alphabet have to do with anything? (Aside from writing Greek,
of course.) I always found the "I am Alpha and Omega" quote a pretty
odd thing for a Midian storm god to claim to an on-the-run murderer
from Egypt. Was
Greek some international common language?
Mark Evans
Virgil
<95ecaea4-78af-4829...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Evans <markev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You assume the creator is alive as we understand life.
On the contrary, we atheists and agnostics do not assume any creator at
all.
Evolution is compatible with all known observations, but for any
creationist notion of a "creator" to be equally compatible, we must
postulate a creator wishing to deceive humanity about its creation.
Syd M.
> On May 1, 10:59 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 8:32 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 7:05 am, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
>
> > > (SNIP RANT)
>
> > > You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
> > > its creator came from. It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
> > > life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
> > > from nothing or was itelf created. Som OMJ, which is it? A creator
> > > coming form nothing or being creatred? Or are you simply wrong.
>
> > > Mark Evans
>
> > What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
> > understand?
>
> What part of "Where did your god come from?" did *you* not understand?
>
>
The question part.
PDW
Virgil
<10c2dd52-d3ea-4ae4...@i9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You seem to have some difficulty with the answer part as well.
Burkhard
Zeus is not a creator god. He is third generation deity, when
everything was already in place. The world, or rather Gaia, the mother
godess might have been born from an egg laid by Nyx, the bird with
black wings, but it is more likely she came from chaos, pre-law
nothingness - big bang theory shows again Greek religion to be true.
Gaia conceived with herself Uranus, the sky. Their children were the
titans. One of the Titans, Prometheus, created humans (animals
probably evolved all by themselves, though some say they were created
by other Titans, especially Epimetheus. According to this source,
Epimetheus created animals over a long period of time, and gave each
animal a special ability to survive depending on where they would
live- obviously confirmed by the ToE). Zeus is a relative latecomer
who doesn't do much
MarkA
>
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a
> rock.
>
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
>
So says someone who still believes that there is some mystical animating
force in living things that makes them intrinsically different from the
non-living. That notion was popular before science discovered that the
line between living and non-living was not as sharp as they thought it
would be.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Father Haskell
19th century, before chemists synthesized the first
organic molecules -- "organic" originally meaning
"only life can create it?"
Seon Ferguson
such hogwash.
fasgnadh
>
> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would believe
> in such hogwash.
Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
The Greatness of God is something we cannot understand even though we
are aware of it
- Rene Descarte 1596-1650 mathematician and philosopher
Ren� Descartes one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in
the Western World. honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system
used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important
work on invariants and geometry. His Meditations on First Philosophy
partially concerns theology and he was devoted to reconciling his ideas
with the dogmas of Catholic Faith to which he was loyal.
I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the infinite in the world
- Louis Pasteur 1822-95
As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things.
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
The scientific picture of the real world around me is very
deficient...Science cannot tell us why music delights us, of why and how
an old song can move us to tears.... Science is reticent too when it is
a question of the great Unity... of which we all somehow form a part, to
which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God.
- Erwin Schroedinger 1933 Nobel prize in Physics
"My view of the World" 1918
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science.
Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the
religious elements in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if
all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance
and harmony.
- Max Planck winner of the 1918 Nobel prize in Physics
"Where is Science Going" 1918
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what"
-Sir Arthur Eddington
Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can
soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not
possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the
wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of
superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone
he would make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of
materialism.
- 'Abdu'l - Baha "Paris Talks" 1911
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of
the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as
well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces
worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in
the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the
complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use
the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological
status of the word." (3)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it
quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be
some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the
explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something
instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards,
a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the
Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could
never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances
indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the
thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather,
Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without
intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence
of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially
crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or
Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present
state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique
event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very
delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to
permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say
'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe
has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty
of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very
tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am
sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by
our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the
divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has
lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad
dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall� be able to
take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my
career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced
atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be
writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-
Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are
straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand
them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable
logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since
has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The
Physics Of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is
described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created
it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the
existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and
refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie
evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that
requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one....
Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the
teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe,
in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but
our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no
question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe,
however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial
conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981
Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the
marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how.
The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God
in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and
director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the
University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes
in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to
myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little
corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to
understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a
superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to
comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in
Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I
can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100
billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed
and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would
contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that
the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out
of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to
that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may
extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be
entirely unique." (25)
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a
little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It
does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects." - Albert Einstein
"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most
precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be
generated by accident, is zero."- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a
knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge,
and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off
even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a
chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems
unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived --
you might say a 'put-up job'."- Dr. Paul Davies
(noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide
University)
Just a few believers who exceeded the intellectual output of this
ignorant atheist fuckwit and his cronies in alt.atheism;
Sir Francis Bacon - established the scientific method of inquiry based
on experimentation and inductive reasoning.
Nicolaus Copernicus Catholic canon who introduced a heliocentric world view.
William Turner the "father of English botany"
John Napier Scottish mathematician known for inventing logarithms,
Napier's bones, and being the popularizer of the use of decimals.
Johannes Kepler His model of the cosmos based on nesting Platonic solids
was explicitly driven by religious ideas; his later and most famous
scientific contribution, the Kepler's laws of planetary motion, was
based on empirical data that he obtained from Tycho Brahe's meticulous
astronomical observations,
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations.
- Galileo Galilei 1615.
..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with
the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of Religion... science without religion
is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" 1954
The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven
- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
Blaise Pascal well-known for Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem
(math), and Pascal's Wager (theology).
Nicolas Steno a pioneer in both anatomy and geology
Robert Boyle Scientist and theologian who argued that the study of
science could improve glorification of God.
John Wallis As a mathematician he wrote Arithmetica Infinitorumis,
introduced the term Continued fraction, worked on cryptography, helped
develop calculus, and is further known for the Wallis product.
Gottfried Leibniz A polymath who worked on determinants, a calculating
machine
Isaac Newton (He is regarded as one of the greatest scientists and
mathematicians in history.
Thomas Bayes Bayes' theorem. Fellow of the Royal Society
Firmin Abauzit A physicist and theologian.
Carolus Linnaeus father of modern taxonomy, contributions to ecology.
Leonhard Euler mathematician and physicist,
Maria Gaetana Agnesi mathematician
Isaac Milner Lucasian Professor of Mathematics
Michael Faraday
Charles Babbage
Gregor Mendel "father of modern genetics"
Asa Gray - Gray's Manual remains a pivotal work in botany.
Louis Pasteur Inventor of the pasteurization method, a french chemist
and microbiologist. He also solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax,
chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the
development of the first vaccines.
Lord Kelvin Thermodynamics. winner of the Copley Medal and the Royal Medal,
Pierre Duhem Thermodynamic potentials
Dmitri Egorov mathematician - differential geometry
John Ambrose Flemingthe Right-hand rule and work on vacuum tubes,
Fleming valve. the Hughes Medal.
Max Planck founder of Quantum mechanics (1918 Nobel Prize in Physics
Edward Arthur Milne astrophysicist and mathematician proposed the Milne
model and had a Moon crater named for him. Gold Medal of the Royal
Astronomical Society,
Arthur Compton Nobel Prize in Physics.
Georges Lema�tre proposed the Big Bang theory. Roman Catholic priest
Sir Robert Boyd pioneer in British space science
von Weizs�cker nuclear physicist Bethe-Weizs�cker formula.
Charles Hard Townes 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics 1966 wrote The
Convergence of Science and Religion.
Freeman Dyson the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, and the Lewis
Thomas Prize.
John T. Houghtonco-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society.
Micha? Heller mathematical physicist relativistic physics and
Noncommutative geometry.
Eric PriestSolar Magnetohydrodynamics , won the George Ellery Hale Prize
Francis Collins director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute.
John D. Barrow English cosmologist implications of the Anthropic principle.
Denis Alexander Director of the Faraday Institute and author of
Rebuilding the Matrix - Science and Faith in the 21st Century.
Christopher IshamTheoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism.
Martin NowakEvolutionary biologist and mathematician best known for
evolutionary dynamics.
And that's just a partial list of Western scientists who were believers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
L.Roberts
<fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: A mess of shit apropos to naught.
Seon was talking about religion ya jackass bastard. Nothing you posted
had to do with his statement, ya dumbshit. Get with the program, will
ya, ya dumb fuck.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
> >
> > The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would believe
> > in such hogwash.
>
>
> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
Since over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists are openly
non-theist, and have been ever since it has been safe for them to be
open about it, those like fasgnadh have the wrong end of that stick.
>
> And that's just a partial list of Western scientists who were believers.
Fasgnadh's list included only those who, like Galileo, lived under the
repression of a dogmatic established religion which dealt severely with
those who did not profess the faith. So their theism, like the atheism
of those living under Marxism, is only a necessary part of their public
face, and may not be presumed to be their private belief.
Show me such a list of openly theist scientists after it became
occupationally safe for non-theist scientists to be open about their
non-theism, fasgnadh, and I will show you a list of non-theist
scientists 10 times as long.
Seon Ferguson
"L.Roberts" <ozzca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e99d4a3-7ef6-4b8f...@a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
No wonder my server wouldn't let me open his reply. Maybe it auto detected
he was an ignorant troll.
Seon Ferguson
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:72yEn.23307$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
> >
>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would believe
>> in such hogwash.
>
>
> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>
Which brilliant scientist, you mean Hawking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Religious_views
Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion.[50][51] He has
repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings)[52] to illustrate
points made in his books and public speeches. His ex-wife, Jane, however,
said that he was an atheist during their divorce proceedings.[53][54]
Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the normal sense" and he
believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may
have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.
Sir Issac Neton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton#Religious_views
Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic.
But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith � which the
orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that
scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."[6] Snobelen concludes
that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly
read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly
an antitrinitarian.[6] In an age notable for its religious intolerance there
are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his
refusal to take holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the
sacrament when it was offered to him
Galileo? The guy who was oppressed by your beloved church? he would roll
over in his grave if he knew you were trying to link him with the same
superstitious morons who tried to oppress him.
Religion has been the worst scam that was ever bestowed upon humanity. It
has not only slowed scientific progress but because of religion many of the
books in the ancient world have been lost, thousands of people have died in
the name of religion and families have been destroyed.
Seon Ferguson
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NOudnVRxHLEcGX7W...@westnet.com.au...
I can open it now, whoop die do. But anyway yes that had nothing to do with
what I said.
Seon Ferguson
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
Also he doesn't seem to know any CREDIBLE scientists living in the 21st
century who are devout believers. And the one's he does post well...they
weren't religious. Theists love misquoting them.
Burkhard
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>
> news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
>
> > fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>
> >> > The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
> >> > believe
> >> > in such hogwash.
>
> >> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
> >> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>
> > Since over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists are openly
> > non-theist, and have been ever since it has been safe for them to be
> > open about it, those like fasgnadh have the wrong end of that stick.
>
> >> And that's just a partial list of Western scientists who were believers.
>
> > Fasgnadh's list included only those who, like Galileo, lived under the
> > repression of a dogmatic established religion which dealt severely with
> > those who did not profess the faith. So their theism, like the atheism
> > of those living under Marxism, is only a necessary part of their public
> > face, and may not be presumed to be their private belief.
>
> > Show me such a list of openly theist scientists after it became
> > occupationally safe for non-theist scientists to be open about their
> > non-theism, fasgnadh, and I will show you a list of non-theist
> > scientists 10 times as long.
>
> Also he doesn't seem to know any CREDIBLE scientists living in the 21st
> century who are devout believers. And the one's he does post well...they
> weren't religious. Theists love misquoting them.
Off the top of my head (and with a UK bias, just people I happen to
know) try
Prof. R.J. Berry , FRS
Prof. Sir Brian Heap FRS
Professor Sir Martin Evans FRS
Prof. Bob White, FRS, FGS
Prof. Sir John Houghton FRS
Prof. Colin Humphreys
Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
Prof. Eric Priest FRS
to only name people active in the 21 century, and who take their
belief serious enough to have published about it
Seon Ferguson
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:73e25b67-2f2d-4903...@o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I looked that guy up, he seems intelligent and I respect any Christian who
embraces evolution. What I am against is religious people who deny evolution
straight out because they think it goes against their scriptures.
> Prof. Sir Brian Heap FRS
> Professor Sir Martin Evans FRS
> Prof. Bob White, FRS, FGS
> Prof. Sir John Houghton FRS
> Prof. Colin Humphreys
> Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
> Prof. Eric Priest FRS
>
> to only name people active in the 21 century, and who take their
> belief serious enough to have published about it
The rest seem to be professors and stuff but still intelligent. I'm not sure
what their views on evolution are but I still don't think credible
scientists are creationists who deny evolution. There's mountains of
evidence to support evolution. If your religious then just adapt your views
to support the evidence.
fasgnadh
>
>
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:72yEn.23307$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>> >
>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>> believe in such hogwash.
>>
>>
>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>>
> Which brilliant scientist,
The one's I posted, you stupid fuckwit.. can't you even READ, before
opening your mouth and demonstrating once again that you LACK the
intellectual firepower to call these men fools:
> you mean Hawking
"Then we shall� be able to
take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
God." - Stephen Hawking making a liar and a fool out of Seon! B^D
> He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings)
> [52] to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches.
And yet Seon presumes to call him a fool for speaking of God!? B^D
> His ex-wife, Jane, however, said that he was an atheist
> during their divorce proceedings.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA
Yell you what you silly little bitch, you believe his EX-WIFE
and I will believe3 HAWKING HIMSELF!
That way we are continuing to demonstrate which intellect each of
us most closely approximates, and respects!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAAA
> Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the
> normal sense"
Who is? B^D Jesus certainly wasn't! B^D
> and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws
> of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not
> intervene to break the laws.
Why would the Lawmaker God Hawking is discussing, in a way you have
dismissed as idiotic, you worthless insect, break his own Laws?
You are clearly not adequately equipped for this discussion, you are
quoting THREE MEN who all, in thrir lives and actions, rejected your
moron's idiotic opinion that metaphysics is hogwash, and discussed
God at length.
It's simple, follow your own advice and STFU on a subject, like all
others, about which you are CLEARLY CLUELESS, and leave that discussion
to the GREATEST MINDS OF SCIENCE.. and me!
B^]
> Sir Issac Neton?
>
> he never made a public declaration of his private faith
So another Great Scientist who was a man of faith, which you
have deemed foolish.
Thanks for admitting my point and revealing what a COMPLETE FUCKWIT you
are!
>
> Galileo?
Galileo remained a Christian all his life, you MORON! B^D
He prayed to God that the moron, even more stupid than YOU, who
persecuted him, and misrepresented him, as you are doing STILL,
would wake up to the TRUTH!
It took them SIX HUNDRED YEARS for his prayer to be answered,
There is even less chance that you will EVER wake up! B^D
> The guy who was oppressed by your beloved church?
Not my church, you LYING moron, and not relevant because the
Church has apologised for it's idiocy and that just leave YOU
attacking Galileo for believing what you are clearly TOO STUPID
to even begin to grasp.
> he would roll
> over in his grave if he knew you were trying to link him with the same
> superstitious morons who tried to oppress him.
You poor simpleminded cretin, Galileo understood the difference
between the God he SAW in the Universe which his brilliant rational
mind explored and a group of men, who could be as wrong as you in
criticising him for being both Brilliant and a believer.. when both
those cretins AND YOU, are obviously NEITHER!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA
Thanks for demonstrating the 2 major differences between YOU and every
one of those brilliant scientists.
THEY could THINK, AND they believed! B^]
Run along now and play with your crayons, you have demonstrated
once again, why they are theist geniuses and you are a
sub-epsilon moron.
Seon Ferguson
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:mnPEn.23435$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>
>> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:72yEn.23307$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>
> > you mean Hawking
>
> "Then we shall� be able to
> take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
> the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
> ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
> God." - Stephen Hawking making a liar and a fool out of Seon! B^D
>
> > He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings)
> > [52] to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches.
>
> And yet Seon presumes to call him a fool for speaking of God!? B^D
>
No because he wasn't talking about God. If you actually researched these
people you would see that they are not Christians.
> > His ex-wife, Jane, however, said that he was an atheist
> > during their divorce proceedings.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA
>
> Yell you what you silly little bitch, you believe his EX-WIFE
> and I will believe3 HAWKING HIMSELF!
>
But he never said he was religious.
> That way we are continuing to demonstrate which intellect each of
> us most closely approximates, and respects!
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAAA
>
>
> > Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the
> > normal sense"
>
> Who is? B^D Jesus certainly wasn't! B^D
>
Not religious in the sense that religious people are. Jesus was Jewish.
> > and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws
> > of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not
> > intervene to break the laws.
>
> Why would the Lawmaker God Hawking is discussing, in a way you have
> dismissed as idiotic, you worthless insect, break his own Laws?
>
Because he wasn't talking about the God of religion.
> You are clearly not adequately equipped for this discussion, you are
> quoting THREE MEN who all, in thrir lives and actions, rejected your
> moron's idiotic opinion that metaphysics is hogwash, and discussed
> God at length.
>
But they were not believers.
> It's simple, follow your own advice and STFU on a subject, like all
> others, about which you are CLEARLY CLUELESS, and leave that discussion
> to the GREATEST MINDS OF SCIENCE.. and me!
>
> B^]
>
>
> > Sir Issac Neton?
> >
> > he never made a public declaration of his private faith
>
>
> So another Great Scientist who was a man of faith, which you
> have deemed foolish.
>
Isaac Newton was a heretic
Thanks for snipping out that part.
> Thanks for admitting my point and revealing what a COMPLETE FUCKWIT you
> are!
>
> >
> > Galileo?
>
> Galileo remained a Christian all his life, you MORON! B^D
>
But he was persecuted by the church for daring to say something it's leaders
disagreed with.
> He prayed to God that the moron, even more stupid than YOU, who
> persecuted him, and misrepresented him, as you are doing STILL,
> would wake up to the TRUTH!
>
> It took them SIX HUNDRED YEARS for his prayer to be answered,
>
Have I woken up? Idiot.
> There is even less chance that you will EVER wake up! B^D
>
So his prayers went unanswered.
>
> > The guy who was oppressed by your beloved church?
>
> Not my church, you LYING moron, and not relevant because the
> Church has apologised for it's idiocy and that just leave YOU
> attacking Galileo for believing what you are clearly TOO STUPID
> to even begin to grasp.
>
Oh and that makes it better does it?
> > he would roll
> > over in his grave if he knew you were trying to link him with the same
> > superstitious morons who tried to oppress him.
>
> You poor simpleminded cretin, Galileo understood the difference
> between the God he SAW in the Universe which his brilliant rational
> mind explored and a group of men, who could be as wrong as you in
> criticising him for being both Brilliant and a believer.. when both
> those cretins AND YOU, are obviously NEITHER!
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA
>
> Thanks for demonstrating the 2 major differences between YOU and every
> one of those brilliant scientists.
>
Who were not Christians.
> THEY could THINK, AND they believed! B^]
>
>
> Run along now and play with your crayons, you have demonstrated
> once again, why they are theist geniuses and you are a
> sub-epsilon moron.
>
You are the idiot who stands up for intolerant fools who say I will go to
hell for not believing what they do. How dare you or anyone says I will go
to hell just because I don't believe what they believe? And what kind of an
idiot would believe anyone would go to hell? You can have your guilt and
fear but I am happy not believing in your God. I don't have any guilt and I
don't have to worry about going to hell or what will happen to me. I can do
what I want, when I want. I just have to accept if I break the law I will go
to jail. But I am much happier then you or any stupid theists ever will be.
Well maybe not, you are happy in your ignorance. But I am truly happy and
truly liberated. I don't need fairy tales to give me morals or give me
"Hope"
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> You poor simpleminded cretin, Galileo understood the difference
> between the God he SAW in the Universe which his brilliant rational
> mind explored and a group of men, who could be as wrong as you in
> criticising him for being both Brilliant and a believer.
Actually, once Galileo was placed under house arrest, we have no idea
what he really thought, as to stay healthy he had to edit what he said
or wrote to fit the prejudices of his jailers.
Since his time things have improved to the point that now over 90% of
the worlds most productive and creative scientists are openly non-theist.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>> >
>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>> believe in such hogwash.
>>
>>
>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
Seon received a Darwin award, not a Nobel prize! B^D
> Seon was talking about religion
So were all the Greatest Scientists in the history of the planet.
You naturally agree with a dumbfuck nobody like Seon,
and I naturally think that the pantheon of brilliant
scientific geniuses is worth listening to, but you are not.
Thanks for proving my point by giving us an example
of your best thinking on the subject, so I can compare it
to that of Pascal, Einstein and Le Maitre, all of whom clearly
possessed the RATIONAL MINDS which neither you nor Seon show
any signs of possessing:
> ya jackass bastard. Nothing you posted
> had to do with his statement, ya dumbshit.
> Get with the program, will ya, ya dumb fuck.
Your brain has obviously been replaced by a cheap
Taiwanese Tourettaphone! poorly played! B^D
Naturally, all the other Chimps in alt.atheism will
screach and gebber their agreement with you.. they can't
even SPELL Quantum Mechanics, and think it's a company
who could repair their car! B^D
Seon is such an ignoramus he doesn't even know a SINGLE
modern scientist.. even though I listed dozens for him!
You knuckle dragging neanderthals who attack these men as FOOLS
for having religious beliefs AS WELL as brilliant scientific minds
are, yourselves, a JOKE! B^]
You are both insignificant DUMBFUCKS who have never contributed
ONE IOTA to the sum of human knowledge, rather, you are like
Black Holes, whose super-dense idiocy SUCKS the intelligence out of any
discussion! B^D
Now run along and continue your practice, trying to master the only
device for your retarded IQ level, the Tourettaphone;
http://www.rathergood.com/touretteaphone
Seon Ferguson
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-EBD323....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
Exactly and the fact that he was put under house arrests shows that the
religions that fasgandh loves so much have been just as bad as communist
countries.
fasgnadh
> L.Roberts plays his tourettaphone:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>> >
>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>>> believe in such hogwash.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>>> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
Seon received a Darwin award, not a Nobel prize! B^D
>>> The Greatness of God is something we cannot understand even though we
>> Seon was talking about religion
So were all the Greatest Scientists in the history of the planet.
You naturally agree with a dumbfuck nobody like Seon,
and I naturally think that the pantheon of brilliant
scientific geniuses is worth listening to, but you are not.
Thanks for proving my point by giving us an example
of your best thinking on the subject, so I can compare it
to that of Pascal, Einstein and Le Maitre, all of whom clearly
possessed the RATIONAL MINDS which neither you nor Seon show
any signs of possessing:
>> ya jackass bastard. Nothing you posted
>> had to do with his statement, ya dumbshit.
>> Get with the program, will ya, ya dumb fuck.
Your brain has obviously been replaced by a cheap
Taiwanese Tourettaphone! poorly played! B^D
Naturally, all the other Chimps in alt.atheism will
screach and gebber their agreement with you.. they can't
even SPELL Quantum Mechanics, and think it's a company
who could repair their car! B^D
Seon is such an ignoramus he doesn't even know a SINGLE
modern scientist.. even though I listed dozens for him!
You knuckle dragging neanderthals who attack these men as FOOLS
for having religious beliefs AS WELL as brilliant scientific minds
are, yourselves, a JOKE! B^]
You are both insignificant DUMBFUCKS who have never contributed
ONE IOTA to the sum of human knowledge, rather, you are like
Black Holes, whose super-dense idiocy SUCKS the intelligence out of any
discussion! B^D
Now run along and continue your practice, trying to master the only
device for your retarded IQ level, the Tourettaphone;
http://www.rathergood.com/touretteaphone
> No wonder my server wouldn't let me open his reply.
A bad tradesman always blames his tools.
> Maybe it auto detected he was an ignorant troll.
And you mock world class scientists who
believe in religion? pffffft!
fasgnadh
> On 7 May, 04:31, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <72yEn.23307$pv.18...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>>>> believe
>>>>> in such hogwash.
>>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>>>> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
Virgil and Seon snipped the list of
>>> over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists
>>> Fasgnadh's list included only those
>>>
>> Also he doesn't seem to know any CREDIBLE scientists
I listed dozens of the greatest scientist and you ignored them
because they are theists.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your asinine prejudice against
people who have TWO things you lack.. powerful minds AND faith!
>> living in the 21st century who are devout believers.
Who said people who approve of religion or have religious faith
had to be 'devout believers', you pathetic intellectual midget?
You and Virgil slide about, changing your story, defining
the test of reason arbitrarily because all the HISTORICAL evidence
shows that the worlds greatest scientists have always been believers..
right down to the modern age.
You quoted THREE scientists in this debate,
Hawking, Newton and Galileo ALL of them talk of GOD!!!!
the subject of religion which YOU claim is entirely hogwash and
laughable! You are the fool and you and Virgil are the JOKE!
And you are rank HYPOCRITES, now demanding that becasue ALL of Science
for MOST of human history has been done by THEISTS, that we should
not look at those examples.. but we should ONLY consider those living
in the 21st Century!!!!!!!
YOUR OWN HANDPICKED LIST OF THREE was 66% over 3 centuries old!
Newton lived in the 17th century, Galileo SIX HUNDRED years ago,
yet you dismissed hundreds of the most important scientists in
history when I cited them, simply because they are all theists!!!
You and Virgil are INSANE BIGOTS who hate BOTH the greatest
scientists of all time AND men of deep and sincere faith.
You oppose BOTH faith AND reason!
Now you imitate that other gibbering baboon, Virgil, and
reverse your tack, claiming that Galileao and Newton are no longer
modern enough!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAA
You change YOUR OWN ground-rules to suit when you are losing the
argument!
Pathetic, but just what we expect from two atheist nitwits
who are as clueless about the history of science as they are
about the history of faith.
Here's one of the foremost physicists of our time, Richard Feynman,
an ATHEIST, Nobel prize winner and brilliant educator, maybe he can
knock some sense into you two IGNORANT fuckwits:
Listen to what he has to say about who HE thinks is the MOST
SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIST...
"I think that the discovery of electricity and magnetism and the
electromagnetic effects which were finally worked out, the full
equations for everything was worked out by Maxwell in 1873 is
probably the most fundamental transformation, the most remarkable
thing in History, the biggest change in history!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhh32JYkQPk&feature=related
Feynman is that rarity, something you and virgil clearly are not,
an INTELLIGENT atheist, one who is capable of acknowledging that
BRILLIANT SCIENCE is brilliant science NO MATTER WHO MAKES IT!
And he, an atheist FAR MORE COMPETENT to comment on what is
SIGNIFICANT in science acknowledges that the the outstanding
achievement affecting the modern age, was that made by Maxwell
in 1873.
> Off the top of my head (and with a UK bias, just people I happen to
> know) try
>
> Prof. R.J. Berry , FRS
> Prof. Sir Brian Heap FRS
> Professor Sir Martin Evans FRS
> Prof. Bob White, FRS, FGS
> Prof. Sir John Houghton FRS
> Prof. Colin Humphreys
> Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
> Prof. Eric Priest FRS
>
> to only name people active in the 21 century, and who take their
> belief serious enough to have published about it
You and I are wasting our time trying to discuss science
and reason with two epsilon sub moron atheists who know
nothing about either.
All Seon can manage is to cut and paste from Wikipedia
references to Hawking, Galileo and Newton.. ALL OF WHOM
ILLUSTRATE THAT SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE IN HARMONY:
"Then we shall� be able to take part in the discussion
of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph
of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."
- Stephen Hawking
"As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things."
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations."
- Galileo Galilei 1615.
Each of these brilliant men has something profound to say
about God, something which clearly is of interest to the vast
bulk of modern mankind, who remain overwhelmingly open
to the concept of God, and spiritual evolution.. and which falls
on the DEAF ears and BLIND eyes of the ignorant and unreasoning
hate filled anti-theists, Virgil the post forging cyberstalker and Seon
the dimwitted windsock who plays monkey to Virgil's Organ-grinder!
The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven
- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
Seon Ferguson
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:CmSEn.23454$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Burkhard wrote:
>> On 7 May, 04:31, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <72yEn.23307$pv.18...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>>>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> in such hogwash.
>>>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>>>>> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>
> Virgil and Seon snipped the list of
>
>>>> over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists Fasgnadh's list
>>>> included only those
>>> Also he doesn't seem to know any CREDIBLE scientists
>
> I listed dozens of the greatest scientist and you ignored them
> because they are theists.
>
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your asinine prejudice against
> people who have TWO things you lack.. powerful minds AND faith!
>
They are not Christians. There is nothing wrong with believing in God and
science, I have a great respect for the Bahai faith. What I am against is
religious morons saying I am going to hell or rejecting science because
their scripture goes against it.
Kilmir
> simply put, as omj posted dozens of times, you can't get blood out of a rock.
> and you can't get a living thing out of something that isn't alive.
You mean like the Abrahamic story of Adam being formed from dust? Yeah
I agree it's total nonsense.
> the Atheists make the claim that Darwin's idea of Evolution does not need a starting point is
> exactly where the fun begins. to promote Evolution as something all living things have in common
> requires a starting point. this, they studiously avoid.
The Theory of Evolution deals with the diversity of life after it
started.
Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life.
For a nice comprehensive description of current theories how life
probably started, try the "Origin of.." series bij cdk007 on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=PlayList&p=628B019A48348AEA&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
They start off with debunking typical creationist arguments, but
eventually go into a lengthy description of how it all works via
chemical processes.
> the Atheists default immediately to cursing man and God when required to show from their brand of
> science exactly how life came from elements that are not alive... after all, for Evolution to be
> true, the second living thing had to evolve out of the first living thing. Evolution doesn't want
> to say they have no answer of how the first living thing came into existence.
Atheists don't do that. Don't lie.
And again, misrepresentation of evolution. Are you honestly this
ignorant?
> here we have their science giving us what is called The Periodic Table. nothing in it is alive.
> yet, our physical bodies comprise amounts of certain of these elements. botta-bing... a dead human
> being has exactly the same elements as does a living person but one is dead and the other is alive.
Components are the same, structure is different.
There are structural changes, mostly in the brain. Without electricity
and continuous supply of oxygen the network of neurons breaks down
rather fast. Restarting is only possible if it's very soon after
cessation of activity (hence, defibrillators work sometimes if applied
fast enough). After that the deterioration is too severe to be able to
be rebooted.
Of course, all the details are still unclear, but that is the general
concept and quite logical really.
In theory, if we were able to manipulate neuron structure and place it
in a position that it can actually work again and we shock it with
electricity it might be possible to revive a dead person. Technology
like that is at least a century away from us though, if even at all
possible.
> no elements of the Periodic Table are alive... ya get it, boys ? no elements of the Periodic Table
> are alive. these elements constitute our physical beings but we are alive and the dead person is
> dead. life comes from the Living God, not Darwin; the Atheist explanation starts on the second
> floor... no foundation.
Incorrect. Abiogenesis is getting quite decent theories, and several
parts are already experimentally verified.
The deity concept is actually the one that starts on the second floor.
It assumes some living superbeing already exists, but doesn't explain
how it got there in the first place.
> before my Thanksgiving turkey evolved out of a dinosaur, as the Atheists once said on a Natgeo
> program aired 2 years ago, the dinosaur had to evolve out of something alive, and it, from something
> alive... all the way back to the very first living thing which these Atheists, at this point, go off
> on a tangent.
> at this point, the starting point, nothing on earth is alive.
Define alive. Before genetic code structures like DNA and RNA there
were structures of molecules (cells if you will) that could self-
replicate. Before that there were the first molecules that could self-
replicate. And before that there were chemical processes that could
produce molecules capable of self-replication.
At which point do you draw the line of "this is life"?
> botta-bing ! non-living elements came together in just the right way and gave life to itself. this
> is all made possible from the early earth environment other geniuses have concocted, not Darwin.
> molten, poisonous gaseous early earth, absolute sterility talk, cooled off over time, which is not
> alive either, and lo and behold, non-living elements came together in just the right way and gave
> life to itself which makes Atheists very happy and able now to think that don't have the wrath of
> God and Judgment Day hanging over their head's.
Atheists don't believe in your fairy tales. We're not afraid of your
god or supposed apocalypses because we don't think any of it is real.
The same way we are also not afraid of Darth Vader or Sauron.
> dream on, boys.
>
> now, watch the cursing of God and man begin since they can not refute that God is the Giver of life,
> which they already know because He made Himself evident to them, rendering them " without excuse "
> as we read in Ro. 1:18-20.
Total insanity.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Where do you think Lenin and Stalin got their ideas from?
Burkhard
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
Sorry, misunderstanding - NONE of them denies evolution, and would be
shocked by the idea. The post I replied to asked only for "devout
believers" not for "lunatic evolution deniers". They are all UK based
(FRS = Fellow of the Royal Society", i.e. the top level of UK
scientists), and over here the Churches of England and Scotland
actively participated celebrating Darwin year.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Seon was talking about religion
Of a 445 line posting by Fasgnadh , the above is the only line Fasgnadh
did NOT write, and the only line that made any sense.
The non-theist version of atheism can hardly be as foolish as Fasgnadh
tries to claim when, as is the case today, over 90% of the worlds TOP
scientists are openly non-theist and a clear majority of ALL scientists
are also openly non-theist.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> So were all the Greatest Scientists in the history of the planet.
Today, over 90% of the worlds top scientists are openly non-theist and
over half of all scientists are openly non-theist.
Since this is true also in the USA where the vast majority are theist,
this underlines the well known fact that theism correlates with both
ignorance and stupidity, and non-theism with both knowledge and
intelligence.
And, at least up until 1970 or 1980, most of the scientists who had ever
lived were still living.
George
> In article <%JPEn.23440$pv.15...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > Seon was talking about religion
>
> Of a 445 line posting by Fasgnadh , the above is the only line Fasgnadh
> did NOT write, and the only line that made any sense.
>
> The non-theist version of atheism can hardly be as foolish as Fasgnadh
> tries to claim when, as is the case today, over 90% of the worlds TOP
> scientists are openly non-theist and a clear majority of ALL scientists
> are also openly non-theist.
Trying to make sense of Fasgnadh a godbotherer posting religious
diatribe into an athiest newsgroup is like poking holes in water so
the fish can breath !
Virgil
fasgnadh plays his tourettaphone:
> L.Roberts plays his tourettaphone:
> > fasgnadh wrote this laughable drivel:
> >> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >> >
> >>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
> >>> believe in such hogwash.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
> >> and accomplishments;
The openly non-theists of today include over 90% of the worlds top
scientists and over 50% of all scientists
> You naturally agree with a dumbfuck nobody like Seon
Far better to agree with someone sensible like Seon rather that someone
idiotic and compulsively wrong like Fasgnadh.
> and I naturally think that the pantheon of brilliant
> scientific geniuses is worth listening to
The openly non-theists of today include over 90% of the worlds top
scientists and over 50% of all scientists, and this has been the case
for almost a half century.
>
> Thanks for proving my point by giving us an example
> of your best thinking on the subject, so I can compare it
> to that of Pascal, Einstein and Le Maitre, all of whom clearly
> possessed the RATIONAL MINDS which neither you nor Seon show
> any signs of possessing
Einstein openly rejected the claims of all established religions, so
that fasgnadh is citing him in support of what he despised.
> Your brain has obviously been replaced by a cheap
> Taiwanese Tourettaphone! poorly played! B^D
Fasgnadh again descends to ad hominem argument.
>
>
> Naturally, all the other Chimps in alt.atheism
Fasgnadh again descends to ad hominem argument. But forgets that he is
one of the more prolific posters in alt.atheism so names himslef a Chimp.
>
> Seon is such an ignoramus he doesn't even know a SINGLE
> modern scientist.. even though I listed dozens for him!
Few of those Fasgnadh listed are alive. And of todays top scientists,
over 90% openly non-theist, so prove Fasgnadh foolishly wrong.
>
> You knuckle dragging neanderthals who attack these men as FOOLS
> for having religious beliefs AS WELL as brilliant scientific minds
> are, yourselves, a JOKE!
By comparison to todays non-theists scientists, you theists are the
knuckle dragging neanderthals.
>
> You are both insignificant DUMBFUCKS who have never contributed
> ONE IOTA to the sum of human knowledge
Those 90% non-theist top scientists are contributing a good deal more
light and a good deal less heat than fasgnadh.
, rather, you are like
> Black Holes, whose super-dense idiocy SUCKS the intelligence out of any
> discussion!
Fasgnadh, and his ilk aref this NG's super-dense idiots whose reliance
on ad homs rather than logic SUCKS the intelligence out of any
discussion the enter!
So that Fasgnadh is the one whose prose is tourette-like.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
> > On 7 May, 04:31, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> In article <72yEn.23307$pv.18...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this:
> >>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man
> >>>>> would believe in such hogwash.
> >>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
> >>>> and accomplishments;
SCientists do but Fasgnadh does not.
>
> Virgil and Seon snipped the list of
theist scientists who dared not be openly non-theist.
>
> >>> over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists are openly
> >>> non-theist, and a claer majority of all scientists are
> >>> non-theist.
> >>> Fasgnadh's list included only those who lived in times when being
> >>> openly non-theist was extremely risky. look what happened to
> >>> Galileo for much less that open non-theism, and to all of those
> >>> the RCC called heretical.
> >>>
> I listed dozens of the greatest scientist and you ignored them
> because they are theists.
Your list included few, if any, who wold have dared to be openly
non-theist, as the religious powers of those times suppressed such
openness violently.
>
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your asinine prejudice against
> people who have TWO things you lack.. powerful minds AND faith.
Those with powerful minds and those with faith are becoming less
entwined daily. Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists
today are openly non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
>
>
> >> living in the 21st century who are devout believers.
>
> Who said people who approve of religion or have religious faith had
> to be 'devout believers', you pathetic intellectual midget?
>
> You and Virgil slide about, changing your story, defining the test of
> reason arbitrarily because all the HISTORICAL evidence shows that the
> worlds greatest scientists have always been believers.. right down to
> the modern age.
Not so!
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Seon Ferguson
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:722a9ef0-8f7b-4ef5...@e35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
So why can't all Christians be like that? Is it ignorance? Or just because
they listen to what other ignorant authors say. I have nothing against
Christians who embrace evolution and teach it to their kids or support it
being taught as science.
Seon Ferguson
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:3q08u5pdnqtneh802...@4ax.com...
Seon Ferguson
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-09FF1E....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
Exactly and most of the scientists fasgandh posted lived in a time where the
church controlled science.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Show me where Marx advocated totalitarianism.
fasgnadh
> On May 8, 7:51 am, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>
>> atheism can hardly be as foolish as
this exchange demonstrates, can it;
# From: Haywire <paris...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: You know what's really sad?
# Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
# <a760daf5-925d-4f44...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
#
# > I wish a believer with even half of a brain
# > would come here so we could have real discussions.
#
# Seconded.
# If there are any of you out there,
# come on in,
#
# we don't bite!
Lies!
The atheist hypocrites got their wish, someone
with half a brain posted on the Book of Moroni,
and they all wet themselselves with excitement;
From: Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Book of Mormon / KJV Bible Connection
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:
<e89f6e2d-f76f-4f70...@c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
# On Apr 23, 8:24=A0pm, "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# > "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
# >
news:d3785d3a-58c1-4fc7...@i40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
# >
# >>The more we learn about religion, the better armed
# >>we are to beat it down where it belongs!
# >
# > >Budikka
# >
# > Thanks for the support guys. Since we hardly ever talk about
# > Mormonism on alt.religion.mormon anymore, I might just
# > treat y'all to a weekly column.
# >
# > -Xan
#
# Looking forward to it!
#
# Budikka
> Trying to make sense of
> a godbotherer posting religious
> diatribe into an athiest newsgroup is like poking holes in water so
> the fish can breath !
Sure, but atheists are clearly FUCKWITTED DELUSIONAL HYPOCRITES who
lie pathologically and can't maintain a coherent rational argument!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA!
Showing what fools atheists are is like shooting FISH IN A BARREL!
Here's what the atheists were running from when they started that
latest irrational and self-contradicting RANT;
> Seon was talking about religion
So were all the Greatest Scientists in the history of the planet.
Seon Ferguson
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:a5c9u5hmj6alvd59p...@4ax.com...
I don't know maybe it evolved? I'm not a communist so I don't know much
about the history of communism. Or maybe modern communism has nothing to do
with Marxism.
fasgnadh
No you don't;
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash."
You don't even acknowledge brillian Christian scientists of the past,
let alone the present.
YOu are on record DENYING that Galileo and Newton were Christians.
> What I am against
Is having someone show what a WINDSOCK you are, shifting ground as if
you think people have forgotten what you said just five minutes ago!
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man
would believe in such hogwash."
Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
> is religious people who deny evolution straight
> out because they think it goes against their scriptures.
Catholic, Protestant Jewish and Muslim schools in my state,
all teach evolution, yet you have broadly dismissed 'religion'
as laughable hogwash and now tell us it is merely the tiny
subset of Creation Science you are referring to.
You are a slandering moron.
>> Prof. Sir Brian Heap FRS
>> Professor Sir Martin Evans FRS
>> Prof. Bob White, FRS, FGS
>> Prof. Sir John Houghton FRS
>> Prof. Colin Humphreys
>> Revd Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
>> Prof. Eric Priest FRS
>>
>> to only name people active in the 21 century, and who take their
>> belief serious enough to have published about it
>
> The rest seem to be professors and stuff but still intelligent.
None of them had been exposed to your posts, guaranteed
to such the intelligence from the room like a Black
Hole of malign ignorance.
> I'm not sure
The only truthful thing you have posted in years.
> what their views on evolution are
How many times do you think you can PRETEND we are discussing
something NEW, just because you have woken up that you have been
aggressively asserting COMPLETELY LAUGHABLE HOGWASH which you
cannot support with rational argument and now have to ground shift?
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash." Now, presented with a list of...
"any CREDIBLE scientists living in the 21st century who are devout
believers."
... you don't apologise for your ignorance,
you don't apologise for your lies, you don't beg pardon from those
who have shown what a FOOL you are...
you try and move to a discussion of 'evolution' when the major
churches and OTHER WORLD RELIGIONS .. TEACH IT in their schools.
> but I still don't think
That's two honest statements from you! 8^o
Theist scientists have always been at the forefront of human knowledge,
religious systems have inspired, built and sustained the worlds great
and enduring civilisations, and atheism has managed only a handful of
20th century states, every one of which was a totalitarian disaster.
Why are atheists so obtuse?
fasgnadh
Not a misunderstanding, Seon shifts ground deliberately when
his PREVIOUS idiocy is exposed, he lacks all intellectual integrity
and simply cannot admit that he was wrong.
> NONE of them denies evolution, and would be
> shocked by the idea. The post I replied to asked only for "devout
> believers" not for "lunatic evolution deniers".
The denizens of alt.atheism are incapable of such reasonable discrimination.
They take the LCD, fundies, and extrapolate it not just to all
Christians, but to all religious.
It's a version of the Evil Doctrine of Collective Responsibility
propagated by the Nazis. They found some Jewish criminals (every group
has some) and repeated teh phrases relentlessly in the media "Jewish
Rapist", "Jewish Murderer" till the terms became synonomous in people's
minds and then it was easier to implement their mass murder.
Thus all Christians, nay, ALL RELIGIOUS, are held, by anti-theists,
to be accountable for;
- the Inquisition
- The Crusades
- Borgia Popes
- Holy War
- Islamofascist terror
- Creation Science
- paedophile priests
And it is that same hatred toward religion which leads them to
deny the undeniable contribution which religion has made,
and continues to make, to society, to science, to art, music,
philosophy, civilisation...
> They are all UK based
> (FRS = Fellow of the Royal Society", i.e. the top level of UK
> scientists), and over here the Churches of England and Scotland
> actively participated celebrating Darwin year.
All the Catholic schools, the LARGEST christian church, does the same.
The atheists and seon are stuck in an outdated paradigm.
They are still running the same Marxist critique of religion,
despite the application of atheism to state politics in the 20th century
resulting in terror, torture and tyranny on an unprecedented scale in
human history, over 70,000,000 dead, more than any religion in all of
history.
Death toll per capita per year in power, atheism is the most
deadly ideology ever to infect a body politics.
And yet we see them indiscriminately denouncing religion for the acts
of an UNREPRESENTATIVE minority, the abberations, while EVERY atheist
regime, the NORM, has been a totalitarian tyranny.
Logic and reason are not their forte! B^]
Seon Ferguson
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:EO2Fn.23578$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Don't tell me how I feel. I know I respect Christians who believe in
evolution. That's why i respect the Bahai faith, it says science and
religion can live in harmony.
As for the quotes, which prove nothing...:
> "I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
>
I was rejecting religion, mainly Islam
> "The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man
> would believe in such hogwash."
>
You can believe in God without believing in religion.
> Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
>
I still believed in God I just wanted the evidence. You never provided it
for me. All you did was accuse atheists of being communists.
> Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
>
I never said I didn't believe in God I just acknowledged there was no
evidence.
> Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
>
As I said I was rejecting religion, mainly Islam.
> Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
>
I never said I didn't believe in God I just acknowledged there was no
evidence.
> Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
> use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
>
Yep and I still don't take anything you say seriously. You are the one who
resorted to silly childish names.
By the way you say you are agnostic. Are you also agnostic about the God and
Goddess of Wicca? Are you agnostic about the Gods and Goddesses of Paganism?
Are you agnostic about Buddha or the Hindu Gods? Well answer me, why are you
only agnostic about God and why can't you define God?
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Burkhard wrote:
>>> On 7 May, 04:31, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <72yEn.23307$pv.18...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>>>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>>>>>> believe in such hogwash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>>>>>> and accomplishments; BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>>
>> Virgil and Seon snipped the list of
>>
>>>>> over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists Fasgnadh's
list included only those
>>>> Also he doesn't seem to know any CREDIBLE scientists
>>
>> I listed dozens of the greatest scientist and you ignored them
>> because they are theists.
>>
>> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your asinine prejudice against
>> people who have TWO things you lack.. powerful minds AND faith!
>>
Now Seon, the MOST GUTLESS WINDBAG in Usenet has abandoned ALL
of his prior arguments, snipped everything which shows what a malign
and ignorant shitpig he is, and RAN WAY from the uncomfortable truth:
>>>> living in the 21st century who are devout believers.
>>
>> Who said people who approve of religion or have religious faith
>> had to be 'devout believers', you pathetic intellectual midget?
>>
Seon was caught out trying to change his argument AGAIN!
>> You and Virgil slide about, changing your story, defining
>> the test of reason arbitrarily because all the HISTORICAL evidence
>> shows that the worlds greatest scientists have always been
>> believers..
>> right down to the modern age.
>>
>> You quoted THREE scientists in this debate,
>>
>> Hawking, Newton and Galileo ALL of them talk of GOD!!!!
>> the subject of religion which YOU claim is entirely hogwash and
>> laughable! You are the fool and you and Virgil are the JOKE!
>>
>> And you are rank HYPOCRITES, now demanding that becasue ALL
>> of Science for MOST of human history
>> has been done by THEISTS, that we should not look at
>> those examples.. but we should ONLY consider those living
>> in the 21st Century!!!!!!! pffft
>>
>>
>> YOUR OWN HANDPICKED LIST OF THREE was 66% over 3 centuries old!
>>
>> Newton lived in the 17th century, Galileo SIX HUNDRED years ago,
>> yet you dismissed hundreds of the most important scientists in
>> history when I cited them, simply because they are all theists!!!
>>
Seon's Hypocrisy was exposed for all to see, to mock him
and laugh at him! B^D
>>
>> You and Virgil are INSANE BIGOTS who hate BOTH the greatest
>> scientists of all time AND men of deep and sincere faith.
>>
>> You oppose BOTH faith AND reason!
>>
>>
>> Now you imitate that other gibbering baboon, Virgil, and
>> reverse your tack, claiming that Galileao and Newton are no longer
>> modern enough!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAA
>>
>> You change YOUR OWN ground-rules to suit when you are
>> losing the argument!
>>
>> Pathetic, but just what we expect from two atheist nitwits
>> who are as clueless about the history of science as they are
>> about the history of faith.
>>
>> Here's one of the foremost physicists of our time, Richard Feynman,
>> an ATHEIST, Nobel prize winner and brilliant educator, maybe he can
>> knock some sense into you two IGNORANT fuckwits:
>>
>>
>> Listen to what he has to say about who HE thinks is the MOST
>> SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIST...
>>
>> "I think that the discovery of electricity and magnetism and the
>> electromagnetic effects which were finally worked out, the full
>> equations for everything was worked out by Maxwell in 1873 is
>> probably the most fundamental transformation, the most remarkable
>> thing in History, the biggest change in history!"
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhh32JYkQPk&feature=related
>>
Seon cannot deal with the REALITY of modern science!
HE thought he could hide by ignoring ALL the brilliant theist
scientists in history, but now i have rubbed his sniveling little snout
in the most BRILLIANT atheist (now deceased, sadly) who worked
on Quantum Theory.. and who did he say the most brilliant and important
scientist of the modern age was???
MAXWELL.. a theist!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
NO WONDER THAT cowardly little guttersnipe, that stinking shitpile of
ignorance and prejudice has RUN SCREAMING from the debate, as he ALWAYS
DOES when I wipe the floor with his mangy arse!
> They are not Christians.
"The only thing laughable is religion
you said religion, you pathetic ground-shifting LIAR,
not 'Christianity' and Newton and Galileo WERE Christians
"and why any grown man would believe in such hogwash." - Seon
Don't snip another detailed evisceration of your LIES and BULLSHIT,
and shit a another little pile of reeking dog manure in this thread or
you will be laughed at till your ears ache! B^D
> There is nothing wrong with believing in God
"The only thing laughable is religion"
" and why any grown man would believe in such hogwash."
- Seon commenting on his religion as of 9:03 PM 7/5/2010
> and science, I have a great respect for the Bahai faith.
"Founded a century and a half ago, the Bah�� Faith is today among the
fastest-growing of the world�s religions. "
^^^^^^^^^^
- http://www.bahai.org/faq/facts/bahai_faith
"The only thing laughable is religion"
" and why any grown man would believe in such hogwash." -Seon one minute
"I have a great respect for the Bahai faith" - Seon the next.
> What I am against is religious morons saying I am going to hell
Clearly that has NOTHING to do with me, or with religion, per se.
Your condemnation of 'religion' was categorical and not qualified
in ANY WAY. Now you 'respect' it!?!! pfffft!
Now after being abusive and rude you attempt to adopt my viewpoint,
without even the faintest attempt to apologise for your idiocy,
hypocrisy and lies!
> or rejecting science because their scripture goes against it.
Clearly that is what you and Virgil have done with EVERY one of the
brilliant scientists I have flung in your stupid faces, and you do so
because your are ignorant bigots who don't understand either Science or
Faith.
So why do you two morons pontificate on either when you are CLEARLY
OUT OF YOUR DEPTH????
Seon Ferguson
disprove he exists. Which is all I wanted.
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:pn3Fn.23582$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Seon Ferguson
fasgnadh
criticised his 'feelings' B^D :
That's what Seon SAID
Now, realising he can't DEFEND HIS LIES, he pretends his FEELINGS
are different to his WORDS...
Lets leave that monumental fuckwit to debate WITH HIMSELF..
becasue he clearly has NOTHING SENSIBLE TO SAY To ANYONE ELSE...
as soon as you show what he says is RUBBISH, he claims he FEELS
something else..
and no one knows, or wants to guess, the 'feelings' of someone so
inarticulate he SAYS the OPPOSITE of them!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHHAHAAAAAA
I have merely debated WHAT YOU SAID.
If you are such a LIAR that you can't speak the truth about
your 'widdle Feelings, then get out of usenet and go back to fingerpainting.
There is no point in debating such an INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST
windsok who cannot defend the idiotic lies he tells and so pretends
that his SECRET FEELINGS have been misunderstood!
Who fucking CARES!
Come back when you can STATE THEM CLEARLY and unambiguously
and defend them rationally,
till then you are just a waste of time..
>I know I respect Christians who believe in
> evolution.
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash." - Seon the liar.
> That's why i respect the Bahai faith, it says science and
> religion can live in harmony.
> As for the quotes, which prove nothing...:
>
>> "I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
>
> I was rejecting religion, mainly Islam
They teach evolution...
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash." - Seon the liar.
>> "The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man
>> would believe in such hogwash."
>>
> You can believe in God without believing in religion.
Belief in God IS religion.
>> Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
>>
> I still believed in God I just wanted the evidence.
You DEMANDED that others provide you the proof for your OWN belief,
while simultaneously declaring:
"as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?
So Seon Can't explain Seon to Seon! B^D NOTHING HAS CHANGED! B^D
Now you 'respect' the 'religion' you have declared to be laughable
hogwash!
That's because you are a completely irrational nutjob! B^]
> You never provided it for me.
It's NOT MY JOB to understand your INSANE beliefs, let alone
prove them for you!
I'm an agnostic you fucking LUNATIC! B^D I told you so at the time!
You lied about me in a dozen NGs so I stuck it to you,
revealing your HYPOCRISY for all to see! B^]
You SLAG the beliefs of others, yet have no PROOF of your own,
you declare you have religious beliefs yet declare religion
to be laughable hogwash!! B^D
Well, coming out of YOUR MOUTH, it is! B^[
But fortunately there are many SANE religious, you are just not among
their number! B^D
> All you did was accuse atheists of being communists.
No, I showed you that was what the most influential ATHEISTs in history
said, as usual you are just LYING about it because you are cornered;
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>> Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
Then why ask me for evidence of YOUR belief in God, you hypocritical
lunatic!? B^D
> I never said I didn't believe in God
Liar, you calimed to be converted to ATHEISM, by ME! B^D
# Seon declares I have converted him to atheism:
#
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> recruits a convert
# >
# >
# > Should you decide to "deconvert", we'd be glad to have you. <G>
# >
# >
# >
# > Yep and you can thank fundamentalists like fags for the new convert.
> I just acknowledged there was no evidence.
"why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?" - Seon
"explaining" his "Feelings" till they are COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE!
B^D
>> Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash."
> As I said I was rejecting religion, mainly Islam.
"I am happy believing in God" - Mulla Seon, 'rejecting Islam! B^D
>> Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
>
> I never said I didn't believe in God
"as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
> I just acknowledged there was no evidence.
"why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
>> Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
>> use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
>>
> Yep and I still don't take anything you say
Becasue you lack both reason AND Irony! You poor dimwit,
you don't even realise how ridiculous you are!
> By the way you say you are agnostic.
None of your business.. I don't need to enter NEW discussions
with such a febrile liar who can't explain his previous nonsense!
You are a waste of my time and I only
deal with you till your idiocy is clear to all, even other
idiots like Virgil, who then cease to use you as their tool.
Nothing you say has any value, because you will simply say the
opposite next time.
So no one 'debates' with you, they either support your ignorance
and prejudice (the atheists) or mock and deride your idiocy(the sane).
> Are you also
No answers for the ground shifting fraud who WILLNOT and CANNOT
rationally defend his eternal lies, and spin.
It would just be just casting Pearls before swine.
Jack
This is bitch talk. Cliche.
fasgnadh
Seon tries ONE MORE TIME, to ignore all the evidence
of what a COMPLETE IDIOT he is, and try one more
attempted distraction:
> Fasgandh after all this you have still been unable to prove God exists
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
So where's YOUR evidence, Seon, or are you a ranting,
hypocritical nutjob?
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash." - Seon the atheist
Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
I'm an agnostic, prove your own 'laughable hogwash' to yourself!
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Sure, you have never needed proof for any of your unfounded beliefs!
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
This is Seon, the Atheist convert, who can't keep his story straight,
claims he's happy believing in God, has no evidence for God, admits
he's irrational for believing in something he has no evidence for,
and wants someone else to provide evidence for HIS irrational (PRETEND)
beliefs..
That is Seon, in a nutshell.. where any atheist nut belongs!
"I didn't snip anything" - Seon
"I snip them" - Seon, in the SAME sentence, unable to keep his lies
straight.
An intelligent Turing test, applied to Seon's posts
could be seen to
> disprove he exists.
> Which is all I wanted.
Same for the rest of us, so we will just ACT AS IF YOU DON'T!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAA!
fasgnadh
> Fasgandh after all this you have still been unable to prove God exists
> or disprove he exists. Which is all I wanted.
>
> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pn3Fn.23582$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Seon Ferguson abandoned the argument, SNIPPED AND RAN! :
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> Burkhard wrote:
>>>>> On 7 May, 04:31, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:Virgil-C6767A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <72yEn.23307$pv.18...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>>>>>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any
>>>>>>>>> grown man would believe in such hogwash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>>>>>>>> and accomplishments; >>>>>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>>>>
>>>> Virgil and Seon snipped the list of
>>>>
>>>>>>> over 90% of the world's most brilliant scientists
>>>>>>>
Seon tries ONE MORE TIME, to ignore all the evidence
of what a COMPLETE IDIOT he is, and try one more
attempted distraction:
> Fasgandh after all this you have still been unable to prove God exists
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
So where's YOUR evidence, Seon, or are you a ranting,
hypocritical nutjob?
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash." - Seon the atheist
Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
I'm an agnostic, prove your own 'laughable hogwash' to yourself!
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Sure, you have never needed proof for any of your unfounded beliefs!
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
This is Seon, the Atheist convert, who can't keep his story straight,
claims he's happy believing in God, has no evidence for God, admits
he's irrational for believing in something he has no evidence for,
and wants someone else to provide evidence for HIS irrational (PRETEND)
beliefs..
That is Seon, in a nutshell.. where any atheist nut belongs!
"I didn't snip anything" - Seon
"I snip them" - Seon, in the SAME sentence, unable to keep his lies
straight.
An intelligent Turing test, applied to Seon's posts
could be seen to
> disprove he exists.
> Which is all I wanted.
Same for the rest of us, so we will just ACT AS IF YOU DON'T!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAA!
--
fasgnadh
>
>
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:a5c9u5hmj6alvd59p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 8 May 2010 10:07:50 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>> news:3q08u5pdnqtneh802...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 18:01:49 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Virgil-EBD323....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>>>>>> In article <mnPEn.23435$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>>>>> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You poor simpleminded cretin, Galileo understood the difference
>>>>>>> between the God he SAW in the Universe which his brilliant rational
>>>>>>> mind explored and a group of men, who could be as wrong as you in
>>>>>>> criticising him for being both Brilliant and a believer.
>>>>>>
That is always true of atheists.
>>>>>> Since his time things have improved to the point that
every free, progressive, open democratic MAJORITY religious society
teaches the science which such great theists developed.
Athewist regimes were infamous for their social economic and
technological BACKWARDNESS, resulting in mass starvation and the deaths
of millions.
Which is why EVERY atheist regime faailed and even the atheists choose
to live in MAJORITY RELIGIOUS democracies! B^]
>>>>> Exactly
Nothing has ever been
>>>>> as bad as
the atheists who enslaved the USSR, Maoist China and the other
>>>>> communist countries.
>>>>>
>>>> Where do you think Lenin and Stalin got their ideas from?
They were atheists, they substituted SLOGANS for genuine ideas;
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Marx
>>>
>>
>> Show me where Marx advocated totalitarianism.
>
> I don't know maybe it evolved? I'm not a communist so I don't know much
> about the history of communism.
or anything else, for that matter:
Seon Ferguson
>Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
>So where's YOUR evidence, Seon, or are you a ranting,
>hypocritical nutjob?
I don't have any evidence. That's the point, you can't prove God exists or
disprove that he exists. However the same goes for all the other gods and
Goddesses.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
A lot of his usual nonsense.
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Those who are still trying to sell theism are losing market share,
particularly among the more intelligent.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Fasgnadh's lies and ad homs deleted.
> Clearly that is what you and Virgil have done with EVERY one of the
> brilliant scientists I have flung in your stupid faces, and you do so
> because your are ignorant bigots who don't understand either Science or
> Faith.
We certainly do not understand "faith", being the uncritical belief in
claims of things not seen.
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Those who are still trying to sell theism are rapidly losing market
Father Haskell
> On May 1, 8:32 am, Mark Evans <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 7:05 am, old man joe <ne...@home.001> wrote:
>
> > (SNIP RANT)
>
> > You know, the failure of creationism is that it never explained where
> > its creator came from. It is fixiated on life not coming from non-
> > life but keeps ignoring the fact that their creator must have come
> > from nothing or was itelf created. Som OMJ, which is it? A creator
> > coming form nothing or being creatred? Or are you simply wrong.
>
> > Mark Evans
>
> What part of "Nothing is alive" in The Periodic Table was so hard to
> understand?
What part of "carbon has 4 electrons in its outermost shell"
can't you understand?
Virgil
fasgnadh flees the field screaming, in TOTAL DEFEAT!
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
Those who are still trying to sell theism are losing market share,
particularly among the more intelligent.
>
> Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for any evidence God exists"
>
> Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
> use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
Virgil
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
Those who are still trying to hawk theism are losing market share,
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
They had no choice in the matter. But today's scientists do.
AND
Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
>
Virgil
openly non-theist and that percentage is rising and over 50% of all
Kadaitcha Man
dispensed:
> Those who are still trying to sell theism are losing market share,
> particularly among the more intelligent.
> Over 90% of the worlds top scientists today are openly non-theist and
> that percentage is rising. Over 50% of all scientists today are openly
> non-theist and that percentage is also rising.
No matter how often you make the lie, the lie will still be a lie, Virgin.
--
Test signature
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
A bunch of his usual garbage, that I have snipped.
Olrik
So, fasgnadh are you a theist or an atheist these days?
Olrik
So which is it, fasgnadh? Theist or atheist? What's the month's flavour?
panam...@hotmail.com
> So, fasgnadh are you a theist or an atheist these days?
Eh, who cares? I just saw the new thread title, and thought of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm
Neanderthals live! As if you needed anything other that flatnads' own
effluence to provide evidence of that...<g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Seon Ferguson
"Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
news:Virgil-051413....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
That's what I have been trying to point out. Your sure better at explaining
things then I am.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:news:72yEn.23307$pv.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote this laughable drivel:
>>>> >
>>>>> The only thing laughable is religion and why any
>>>>> grown man would believe in such hogwash.
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
>>>>
>>>> Sure Seon, all these numbskulls wish they had your brilliance
>>>> and accomplishments;
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!
>>>>
>>> Which brilliant scientist,
>>
>> The one's I posted, you stupid fuckwit.. can't you even READ, before
>> opening your mouth and demonstrating once again that you LACK the
>> intellectual firepower to call these men fools:
>>
>>>
>>>> The Greatness of God is something we cannot understand even
>>>> though we are aware of it
>>>>
>>>> - Rene Descarte 1596-1650 mathematician and philosopher
>>>>
>>>> Ren� Descartes one of the key thinkers of the Scientific
>>>> Revolution in the Western World. honoured by having the
>>>> Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and
>>>> algebra named after him. He did important work on
>>>> invariants and geometry. His Meditations on First
>>>> Philosophy partially concerns theology and he was
>>>> devoted to reconciling his ideas with the dogmas of
>>>> Catholic Faith to which he was loyal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the
>>>> infinite in the world
>>>>
>>>> - Louis Pasteur 1822-95
>>>>
>>>> As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no
>>>> idea of the manner by which the All-Wise God
>>>> perceives and understands all things.
>>>>
>>>> - Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
>>>>
>>>> The scientific picture of the real world around me is very
>>>> deficient...Science cannot tell us why music delights us,
>>>> of why and how an old song can move us to
>>>> tears.... Science is reticent too when it is a question of
>>>> the great Unity... of which we all somehow form a part, to
>>>> which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God.
>>>>
>>>> - Erwin Schroedinger 1933 Nobel prize in Physics
>>>> "My view of the World" 1918
>>>>
>>>> There can never be any real opposition between religion
>>>> and science. Every serious and reflective
>>>> person realizes, I think, that the religious elements
>>>> in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all
>>>> the powers of the human soul are to act together in
>>>> perfect balance and harmony.
>>>>
>>>> - Max Planck winner of the 1918 Nobel prize in Physics
>>>> "Where is Science Going" 1918
>>>>
>>>> "Something unknown is doing we don't know what"
>>>> -Sir Arthur Eddington
>>>>
>>>> Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's
>>>> intelligence can soar into the heights,
>>>> with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible
>>>> to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the
>>>> wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of
>>>> superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of
>>>> science alone he would make no progress,
>>>> but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.
>>>>
>>>> - 'Abdu'l - Baha "Paris Talks" 1911
>>>>
>>>> Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense
>>>> interpretation of the facts suggests that a
>>>> superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
>>>> chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
>>>> speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts
>>>> seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost
>>>> beyond question." (2)
>>>>
>>>> George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning
>>>> occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible.
>>>> Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes
>>>> it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous'
>>>> without taking a stand as to the ontological
>>>> status of the word." (3)
>>>>
>>>> Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):
>>>> "I find it quite improbable that such order
>>>> came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing
>>>> principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation
>>>> for the miracle of existence, why there is something
>>>> instead of nothing." (6)
>>>>
>>>> John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical
>>>> standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group
>>>> of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with
>>>> the most exacting precision we could never have come
>>>> into existence. It is my view that these circumstances
>>>> indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
>>>>
>>>> George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the
>>>> evidence, the thought insistently arises that some
>>>> supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved.
>>>> Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have
>>>> stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme
>>>> Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially
>>>> crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal
>>>> mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference
>>>> from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
>>>>
>>>> Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads
>>>> us to a unique event, a universe which was
>>>> created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance
>>>> needed to provide exactly the conditions required to
>>>> permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say
>>>> 'supernatural') plan." (10)
>>>>
>>>> Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe
>>>> has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
>>>>
>>>> Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order
>>>> and beauty of the universe and the strange
>>>> coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap
>>>> of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists
>>>> want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
>>>>
>>>> Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order
>>>> displayed by our scientific understanding of
>>>> the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
>>>>
>>>> Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the
>>>> scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of
>>>> reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled
>>>> the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the
>>>> highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he
>>>> is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
>>>> centuries." (14)
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall�
>>>> be able to take part in the discussion of the
>>>> question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
>>>> If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph
>>>> of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
>>>> God." (15)
>>>>
>>>> Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I
>>>> began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was
>>>> a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined
>>>> that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show
>>>> that the central claims of Judeo- Christian theology are
>>>> in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions
>>>> of the laws of physics as we now understand
>>>> them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable
>>>> logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since
>>>> has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The
>>>> Physics Of Christianity.
>>>>
>>>> Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is
>>>> described by the best of all possible mathematics because God
>>>> created it."(17)
>>>>
>>>> Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the
>>>> existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and
>>>> refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie
>>>> evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that
>>>> requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only
>>>> one....Many scientists, when they admit their views,
>>>> incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
>>>>
>>>> Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the
>>>> Universe, in context of expansion,
>>>> that is left for the reader to insert, but
>>>> our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
>>>>
>>>> Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no
>>>> question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
>>>>
>>>> Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe,
>>>> however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial
>>>> conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
>>>>
>>>> Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford
>>>> University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems
>>>> to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and
>>>> the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible
>>>> answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God
>>>> in the universe and in my own life." (22)
>>>>
>>>> Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and
>>>> director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the
>>>> University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science
>>>> comes in those occasional moments of discovering
>>>> something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.'
>>>> My goal is to understand a little
>>>> corner of God's plan." (23)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as
>>>> difficult to understand a scientist who does
>>>> not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality
>>>> behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend
>>>> a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
>>>>
>>>> Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois)
>>>> "Life in Universe - rare or unique?
>>>> I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that
>>>> given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100
>>>> billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets
>>>> that formed and evolved in ways very,
>>>> very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial
>>>> life at least. There are other days when I say that the
>>>> anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out
>>>> of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to
>>>> that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may
>>>> extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could
>>>> be entirely unique." (25)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe.
>>>> We are like a little child entering a huge library.
>>>> The walls are covered to the ceilings with books
>>>> in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must
>>>> have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does
>>>> not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
>>>> child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
>>>> mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
>>>> suspects." - Albert Einstein
>>>>
>>>> "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most
>>>> precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms
>>>> would be generated by accident, is zero."
>>>> - Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
>>>> Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
>>>> I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25,
>>>> pp. 23-28
>>>>
>>>> "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is
>>>> balanced on a knife-edge, but that the
>>>> entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be
>>>> total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even
>>>> slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a
>>>> chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems
>>>> unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived
>>>> you might say a 'put-up job'."- Dr. Paul Davies
>>>> (noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide
>>>> University)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a few believers who exceeded the intellectual output of this
>>>> ignorant atheist fuckwit and his cronies in alt.atheism;
>>>>
>>>> Sir Francis Bacon - established the scientific method of
>>>> inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> Nicolaus Copernicus Catholic canon who introduced a
>>>> heliocentric world view.
>>>>
>>>> William Turner the "father of English botany"
>>>>
>>>> John Napier Scottish mathematician known for inventing
>>>> logarithms, Napier's bones, and being the popularizer
>>>> of the use of decimals.
>>>>
>>>> Johannes Kepler His model of the cosmos based on nesting
>>>> Platonic solids was explicitly driven by religious ideas;
>>>> his later and most famous scientific contribution, the
>>>> Kepler's laws of planetary motion, was based on empirical
>>>> data that he obtained from Tycho Brahe's meticulous
>>>> astronomical observations,
>>>>
>>>> I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who
>>>> has endowed us with senses, reason and
>>>> intellect has intended us to forego their use
>>>> and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
>>>> them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
>>>> matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct
>>>> experience or necessary demonstrations.
>>>>
>>>> - Galileo Galilei 1615.
>>>>
>>>> ..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
>>>> imbued with the aspiration toward truth
>>>> and understanding. This source of feeling, however,
>>>> springs from the sphere of Religion... science without religion
>>>> is lame, religion without science is blind.
>>>>
>>>> - Albert Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" 1954
>>>>
>>>> The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are
>>>> marvellously discerned in all His works and divinely
>>>> read in the open book of heaven
>>>>
>>>> - Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
>>>>
>>>> Blaise Pascal well-known for Pascal's law (physics),
>>>> Pascal's theorem (math), and Pascal's Wager (theology).
>>>>
>>>> Nicolas Steno a pioneer in both anatomy and geology
>>>>
>>>> Robert Boyle Scientist and theologian who argued that
>>>> the study of science could improve glorification of God.
>>>>
>>>> John Wallis As a mathematician he wrote Arithmetica
>>>> Infinitorumis, introduced the term Continued fraction,
>>>> worked on cryptography, helped develop calculus,
>>>> and is further known for the Wallis product.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gottfried Leibniz A polymath who worked on determinants,
>>>> a calculating machine
>>>>
>>>> Isaac Newton (He is regarded as one of the greatest
>>>> scientists and mathematicians in history.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Bayes Bayes' theorem. Fellow of the Royal Society
>>>>
>>>> Firmin Abauzit A physicist and theologian.
>>>>
>>>> Carolus Linnaeus father of modern taxonomy, contributions to ecology.
>>>>
>>>> Leonhard Euler mathematician and physicist,
>>>>
>>>> Maria Gaetana Agnesi mathematician
>>>>
>>>> Isaac Milner Lucasian Professor of Mathematics
>>>> Michael Faraday
>>>>
>>>> Charles Babbage
>>>>
>>>> Gregor Mendel "father of modern genetics"
>>>>
>>>> Asa Gray - Gray's Manual remains a pivotal work in botany.
>>>>
>>>> Louis Pasteur Inventor of the pasteurization method, a
>>>> french chemist and microbiologist. He also solved the
>>>> mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and
>>>> silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development
>>>> of the first vaccines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lord Kelvin Thermodynamics. winner of the Copley
>>>> Medal and the Royal Medal,
>>>>
>>>> Pierre Duhem Thermodynamic potentials
>>>>
>>>> Dmitri Egorov mathematician - differential geometry
>>>>
>>>> John Ambrose Flemingthe Right-hand rule and work on
>>>> vacuum tubes, Fleming valve. the Hughes Medal.
>>>>
>>>> Max Planck founder of Quantum mechanics (1918 Nobel
>>>> Prize in Physics
>>>>
>>>> Edward Arthur Milne astrophysicist and mathematician
>>>> proposed the Milne model and had a Moon crater named
>>>> for him. Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society,
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Compton Nobel Prize in Physics.
>>>>
>>>> Georges Lema�tre proposed the Big Bang theory.
>>>> Roman Catholic priest
>>>>
>>>> Sir Robert Boyd pioneer in British space science
>>>>
>>>> von Weizs�cker nuclear physicist Bethe-Weizs�cker formula.
>>>>
>>>> Charles Hard Townes 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics 1966
>>>> wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion.
>>>>
>>>> Freeman Dyson the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal,
>>>> and the Lewis Thomas Prize.
>>>>
>>>> John T. Houghtonco-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel
>>>> on Climate Change gold medal from the Royal Astronomical
>>>> Society.
>>>>
>>>> Micha Heller mathematical physicist relativistic
>>>> physics and Noncommutative geometry.
>>>>
>>>> Eric PriestSolar Magnetohydrodynamics , won the George
>>>> Ellery Hale Prize
>>>>
>>>> Francis Collins director of the US National Human
>>>> Genome Research Institute.
>>>>
>>>> John D. Barrow English cosmologist implications of
>>>> the Anthropic principle.
>>>>
>>>> Denis Alexander Director of the Faraday Institute and
>>>> author of Rebuilding the Matrix - Science and Faith
>>>> in the 21st Century.
>>>>
>>>> Christopher IshamTheoretical physicist who developed HPO formalism.
>>>>
>>>> Martin NowakEvolutionary biologist and mathematician best
>>>> known for evolutionary dynamics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And that's just a partial list of Western scientists
>>>> who were believers.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
>>>>
>>
>>> you mean Hawking
>>
>> "Then we shall� be able to
>> take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and
>> the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the
>> ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of
>> God." - Stephen Hawking making a liar and a fool out of Seon! B^D
>>
>> > He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings)
>> > [52] to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches.
>>
>> And yet Seon presumes to call him a fool for speaking of God!? B^D
>>
>
> No because he wasn't talking about God.
Which part of "then we would know the mind of God" did you not
understand to be referring to God" you lying little piss-ant?
> If you actually researched these
> people you would see that they are not Christians.
Who said ANYTHING about Christians, you fuckwitted drongo?
>>> His ex-wife, Jane, however, said that he was an atheist
>>> during their divorce proceedings.
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA
>>
>> Tell you what you silly little bitch, you believe his EX-WIFE
>> and I will believe3 HAWKING HIMSELF!
>>
>> That way we are continuing to demonstrate which intellect each of
>> us most closely approximates, and respects!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAAAA
>
> But he never said he was religious.
"I don't think it is very useful to speculate on what
God might or might not be able to do. Rather we should examine
what he actually does with the universe we live in." _ Hawking
That is precisely what every theist scientist in history has done!
Neither Hawking, nor all those other brilliant scientists,
nor myself, can help your own poor, stunted, simplistic,
unsophisticated misunderstanding of what it all means.
You are just TOO stupid to grasp what is being said.
# "Do you think that God can intervene in the universe as he wants
# or is God to bound by the laws of science?"
#
# "Your question of whether God is bound by the laws
# of science is a bit like the question 'can God make a stone
# that is so heavy that he can not lift it'. I don't think it
# is very useful to speculate on what God might or might not
# be able to do. Rather we should examine what he actually does
# with the universe we live in. All our observations suggest
# that it operates according to defined laws. These laws may
# have been made by God, but it seems he does not intervene in
# the Universe to break the laws, at least not once he had set
# the universe going." - Prof Stephen Hawking
#
# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O9cYTZXekA&feature=related
>>
>> > Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the
>> > normal sense"
>>
>> Who is? B^D Jesus certainly wasn't! B^D
>
> Not religious in the sense that religious people are.
> Jesus was Jewish.
You always miss the point. You don't get to determine what
'normal' religion is. The pharisees and saducees assumed they could,
defining what is 'heretical' and they fucked up so badly they
condemned to death the most spiritually enlightened entity on the
planet! God is NOT defined by His Creatures, especially the low IQ
ones such as you, who make the ridiculous assumption that their own
idiocy and ignorance can measure 'normality' in religion! B^D
Potentially there are as many different religions as their are believers,
you don't know.
Like Virgil and all the dimwitted atheists, you operate on
a handful of slogans and stereotypes.
>>> and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws
>>> of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not
>>> intervene to break the laws.
>>
>> Why would the Lawmaker God Hawking is discussing, in a way you have
dismissed as idiotic, you worthless insect, break his own Laws?
>
> Because he wasn't talking about the God of religion.
Anyone's view of God IS RELIGION, you poor deluded simpleton!
AND you haven't addressed the question.. why do YOU have a problem
with the Lawmaker God described by Hawking NOT breaking his OWN LAWS?
It seems you don't understand THAT IS THE RELIGION OF EVERY
ONE OF THOSE BRILLIANT THEIST SCIENTISTS IN HISTORY.
The reason religious scientists DOMINATE ALL THROUGH HISTORY
is becasue they EXPECTED the universe to have meaning and they
set out to discover it.
If you think you are a pointless random cluster of physical
accidents and meaningless chemical reactions, you sit on your arse
in some atheist cyber cafe and bore everyone witless with your
adolescent sub-branch of tiresome Nihilist claptrap!
They conceived of a UNIVERSE with meaning, and then they set about
DISCOVERING IT!
There is a STRAIGHT line between their DEEP understanding of religion
and Einsteins view;
"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a
little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the
ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It
does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a
mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects." - Albert Einstein
"..science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with
the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of Religion... science without religion
is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" 1954
Now, simple minded fuckwits who know as little about science as they
do about religion, protest that Einstein did not hold a conception of
a PERSONAL GOD, (by which he rejected the HUMAN conceptualizations,
typically a bearded gent painted on medieval ceilings) BIG DEAL,
few of the deep thinking religious, or the Sufi mystics or any one
who thinks about it for a moment, believes they can conceptualise God.
Nothing much can be said about God, because the table cannot conceive of
the Carpenter, nor the pot of the Potter.. and so Hawking is making a
deep THEOLOGICAL point when he says such speculation on the nature of
God is POINTLESS!!!!!!!
It will never be any different.
All we can know of God is what his Messengers reveal, the Word they
delivered, their attributes of Love, Justice, Compassion etc, and the
evidence of the great and enduring civilisations built upon those VALUES
and insights into the nature of mankind, from it's Creator.
And that is why I'm an agnostic, you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE
the existence of God, the entire argument is a waste of breath.
But you can see the evidence of God everywhere, in the universe, where
theist scientists have uncovered profound meaning, and in our history,
where our evolving nature is revealed.
>> You are clearly not adequately equipped for this discussion, you are
quoting THREE MEN who all, in thrir lives and actions, rejected your
>> moron's idiotic opinion that metaphysics is hogwash, and discussed
>> God at length.
>
> But they were not believers.
Galileo and Newton NOT BELIEVERS??? B^D
Run along you pathetic lying IMBECILE!!!! B^D
You are a waste of time.
The glory and greatness of the Almighty God are marvellously discerned
in all His works and divinely read in the open book of heaven
- Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use
and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can obtain by
them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical
matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or
necessary demonstrations.
- Galileo Galilei 1615.
As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner
by which the All-Wise God perceives and understands all things.
- Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727
He was definitely talking about YOU, you dimwitted moron! B^D
>> It's simple, follow your own advice and STFU on a subject, like all
others, about which you are CLEARLY CLUELESS, and leave that discussion
>> to the GREATEST MINDS OF SCIENCE.. and me!
>>
>> B^]
>>
>>
>>> Sir Issac Neton?
>>>
>>> he never made a public declaration of his private faith
>>
>>
>> So another Great Scientist who was a man of faith, which you
>> have deemed foolish.
>
> Isaac Newton was a heretic
Who says? Your previous lie, that he 'never made a public
declaration of his private faith' is shot to shit by the
quotes we have from him (see above) so now, having ADMITTED that
he has a 'private faith' you try and backflip by claiming it
was a 'heretical faith'!?!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
Who made YOU the fucking Lord High Inquisitor who can
pronounce on the truth of the faith of OTHERS, you deluded martinet!
You can't even coherently state YOUR OWN!!!! B^D
Thanks for conceding that Newton and Galileo WERE believers, and
you just want to tell THEM that their beliefs don't match yours,
and so they, brilliant thinkers, are WORONG, and you a brainless
fuckwit who contradicts himself in the space of ONE SENTENCE, is
the Measure of Religious Certitude!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAA
Priceless!
You act JUST LIKE the fundies who have upset you, as if YOU
can make authoritative statements about the station and
truth of the beliefs of others!
> Thanks for snipping out that part.
I did try and save you the humiliation of having your cupidity
exposed, once again, but you insisted on your right to be ridiculed!
B^D
Let's recap. you now admit that Newton has a faith, you just
want to call him a heretic because you have appointed yourself
as God's Right Hand on Earth!
YOU, deciding who's a 'hertetic' ! Priceless! B^D
Next you will be quoting Torquemada to support your claim!! B^D
>> Thanks for admitting my point and revealing what a COMPLETE FUCKWIT
you are!
>>
>>>
>>> Galileo?
>>
>> Galileo remained a Christian all his life, you MORON! B^D
>
> But he was persecuted by the church for daring to say something it's
> leaders disagreed with.
YOUR CLAIM: "they were not believers."
Now you claim Galileo WAS a believer, such a believer that his faith
remained intact EVEN WHEN IDIOTS as brainless as YOU called him a
HERETIC, as you have done with Newton! B^p
So.. you are on the side of the medieval dimwits who neither understood
Galileo's SCIENCE or his FAITH, and I am one of those who grasps BOTH!
What is the point of me talking to a fundie nutjob like you?
>> He prayed to God that the moron, even more stupid than YOU, who
>> persecuted him, and misrepresented him, as you are doing STILL,
>> would wake up to the TRUTH!
>>
>> It took them SIX HUNDRED YEARS for his prayer to be answered,
>
> Have I woken up?
Clearly NOT, as I just said, THEY woke up, it seems YOU never will
What do look like now, agreeing with me?
> Idiot.
Yup.
>> There is even less chance that you will EVER wake up! B^D
>
> So his prayers went unanswered.
You poor demented dimwit, his prayer was that the IGNORANT
CHURCH LEADERS would wake up ... he didn't have to deal with
the even greater cluster of morons ... you and Virgil! B^D
>>> The guy who was oppressed by your beloved church?
>>
>> Not my church, you LYING moron,
You liars seem to think that anyone who shows YOU to be
ranting nonsense must be supporters of whoever you ar4e wrong about.
Wrong!
>> and not relevant because the
>> Church has apologised for it's idiocy and that just leave YOU
>> attacking Galileo for believing what you are clearly TOO STUPID
>> to even begin to grasp.
>
> Oh and that makes it better does it?
Nothing could make your LIES and SLANDER about me better,
it simply explains what a fool you are as well, you are on the side
of the IGNORANT clerics, slandering Gelileo, a great scientist and a
firm believer.
He clung to what he believed to be true, you are windsock who changes
with every gust from any direction!
>>> he would roll
>>> over in his grave if he knew you were trying to link him with the same
>>> superstitious morons who tried to oppress him.
>>
>> You poor simpleminded cretin, Galileo understood the difference
>> between the God he SAW in the Universe which his brilliant rational
>> mind explored and a group of men, who could be as wrong as you in
>> criticising him for being both Brilliant and a believer.. when both
>> those cretins AND YOU, are obviously NEITHER!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA
>>
>> Thanks for demonstrating the 2 major differences between YOU and every
>> one of those brilliant scientists.
>>
>> THEY could THINK, AND they believed! B^]
>
> Who were not Christians.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao Pol Pot, Virgil and you.
The scientists I listed were Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or
Hindus... or.. .
>> Run along now and play with your crayons, you have demonstrated
>> once again, why they are theist geniuses and you are a
>> sub-epsilon moron.
>>
>>
> You are the idiot who stands up for intolerant fools who say I will
go to hell for not believing what they do.
No I don't. And you can't show me ever doing so.
You ARE the intolerant fool, you make false accusations you can't prove,
and when you are shown to be talking shit you snip and run,
avoid all the evidence of your stupidity and tell new lies.
> How dare you or anyone says I will go to hell
It's simple.. you are a fucking LIAR.
I don't believe in hell, I don't tell anyone they will go to hell,
from reading your posts it seems clear you are already IN IT! B^D
Your hell is a psychosis, you feel persecuted and you probably are,
becasue no one like a pathetic, snivelling cowardly LIAR!
Now fuck off an go back to grovelling with that other moral maggot,
Virgil, he has the same lack of honesty and intellectual
integrity that you constantly reveal.
If you can find any example of me preaching Hell,
then come back and I will show you how Virgil fabricated it,
he's a notorious post forger.
> just because I don't believe what they believe?
Who gives a fuck what a deluded windsock like yo7u believes from moment
to moment?
The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
>>>>> believe in such hogwash.
> And what kind of an idiot would believe anyone would go to hell?
You apparently.. it has upset you so much you are ranting
incoherently at me about your fear of someone saying you will go there!
Why don't you GROW up and stop whining all over Usenet?
> You can have your guilt and fear but I am happy not believing in your
God.
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
"Yes Atheists have beliefs" - Seon
Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
This is Seon, the Atheist convert, who can't keep his story straight,
claims he's happy believing in God, has no evidence for God, admits
he's irrational for believing in something he has no evidence for,
and wants someone else to provide evidence for HIS irrational (PRETEND)
beliefs..
That is Seon, in a nutshell.. where any atheist nut belongs!
"I didn't snip anything" - Seon
"I snip them" - Seon, in the SAME sentence, unable to keep his lies
straight.
_______________________
Seon declares I have converted him to atheism:
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# "John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> recruits a convert
# >
# >
# > Should you decide to "deconvert", we'd be glad to have you. <G>
# >
# >
# >
# > Yep and you can thank fundamentalists like fags for the new convert.
# >
Seon the Atheist subsequently claims he believes in God: B^p
#From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops - OF A CHURCH!
BWAAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
# Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:09:05 +1000
# Message-ID: <49f79aa8$0$12595$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
#
# I am happy believing in God
Seon the atheist has no evidence for his belief in God
and asks himself why he believes without evidence:
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Atheist Ads on Spanish Bus - Proof that Atheists
# Proselytise their Beliefs! And they LIE about it!!!
# Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:38:32 +1100
# Message-ID: <49652ef0$0$28522$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# I have had experiences that have taught me life after
# death is true (but it wouldn't be evidence to you) but no
# evidence of God I'm afraid.
#
# as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?
Getting no sensible answer from himself, Seon the Atheist
decides to ask someone more sensible than himself;
# From: "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
# Subject: Re: Is atheism becoming a religion?
# Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:09:04 +1000
# Message-ID: <49f45cf5$0$12614$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
#
# Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists
Seon is told to stop being such a gormless prat, but being a gormless
prat Seon continues to ask others to explain his beliefs to himself!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA
> I don't have any guilt
Because you have no honesty or integrity, you slander people
and then when you are shown to be a malign liar, you run away
and hatch more lies.
> I can do what I want, when I want.
You are an idiot, full of piss an wind, signifying nothing.
> But I am much happier then
> you or any stupid theists ever will be. Well maybe not, you are happy
And so are all those brilliant scientists, because we understand
what is going on, and you are mired in ignorance and lies.
> But I am truly happy and truly liberated. I don't need
> fairy tales to give me morals or give me "Hope"
"I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
"The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man would
believe in such hogwash."
Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Seon Ferguson flees the field screaming, in TOTAL DEFEAT!:
>> use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
>>
>> claims he's happy believing in God, has no evidence for God, admits
>> he's irrational for believing in something he has no evidence for,
>> and wants someone else to provide evidence for HIS irrational (PRETEND)
>> beliefs..
>>
>> That is Seon, in a nutshell.. where any atheist nut belongs!
>>
>> "I didn't snip anything" - Seon
>>
>> "I snip them" - Seon, in the SAME sentence, unable to keep his lies
>> straight.
>>
>>
>> An intelligent Turing test, applied to Seon's posts
>> could be seen to
>>
>> > disprove he exists.
>>
>>
>> > Which is all I wanted.
>>
>> Same for the rest of us, so we will just ACT AS IF YOU DON'T!
>>
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAAA!
>>
Now watch Virgil put word's into the mouth of his sockpuppet, Seon:
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> Those who are still trying to sell theism are losing market share,
> particularly among the more intelligent.
300,000,000 former atheists became theists in China Alone.
In that time atheist numbers only grew by 700,000 in the USA over SEVEN
YEARS! B^D
fasgnadh
>> that percentage is rising.
What has that got to do with your bum boy's LIE that Galileao and
Newton were not Christians?
How long will you try and hide him up your skirt?
> That's what I have been trying to point out.
Shutup Monkey, everyone can see you can't explain your LIES,
let your string puller do your talking for you, you weak minded puppet!
Here's your last chanve to recover some dignity and not be seen
as merely Virgil's Willy warmer....
Here's a list of the top 100 scientists;
Name the 90% who you claim are atheists!!!
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
[ Watch the liars SQUIRM and Sqeual! ]
> Your sure better at explaining things then I am.
Donald Duck is better at explaining things than you.
You are just Virgil's sockpuppet, you have no independent mind.
The proof will be that you won't be able to answer the question(you
NEVER CAN B^), and your organ grinder will have to speak for his
MONKEY! B^]
How humiliating for you, but then you are used to making a complete fool
of yourself in public:
>
>>>
>> "I'm perfectly happy believing in science and God" - Seon
>>>
>>> "The only thing laughable is religion and why any grown man
>>> would believe in such hogwash."
>>>
>>> Seon: "Hey fasg I am still waiting for a. evidence God exists"
>>>
>>> Seon: "as I said why believe in something despite the lack of evidence?"
>>>
>>> Seon: "I am happy believing in God"
>>>
>>> Seon: "I have had .. no evidence of God I'm afraid."
>>>
>>> Seon "I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you
>>> use troll tactics like name calling. Troll."
>>>