Evolution is still Big Baloney because of the Big Bang Theory...

[Jn.2:22@thewell.com Ps.119]

the Big Bang Theory was concocted in the last century. today, the idea is feed to the gullible
through media in the form of cartoons. this Big Bang idea starts off without a starting place...
the ' stuff ' of the universe was " always there." this, at least, leaves ' scientific ' thinker's
with a model to work with but leaves out an extremely important foundation to build their model
on... all the while bypassing this and other extremely important factors that are required to make
their model tenable.

while the focus is on the ' stuff '... that is to say, the matter which Big Banged it's way into
the entire universe, the ' science ' needed to prove where this matter came from in the first place
is completely avoided. it can not be proven by any means in the realm of science exactly where this
matter came from... to say it was "always there " does not prove it's existence came from no where.
such amounts to making a fact out of a guess.

so now we have on the table a something in the realm of ' science ' telling us that matter came
from no where. this violates their own " scientific " law of Conservation of Mass/Energy which
states that matter can not be created or destroyed... that's why they must conclude that the
universe was " always there. " the idea that matter was " always there" just waiting to Big Bang
it's way into the universe we have today, is untenable.

along with that, these ' scientists ' also avoid the proof of where space came from. to say it
was 'always there ' doesn't prove how it came to be... the big question is " how it came to be "
simply because it's inconceivable that something came from no where. the mass of matter which big
banged wasn't laying on a table. no, it was floating in space as they would have us to presume.

now we have two things conveniently avoided by the ' scientific ' mind... no proof of how matter
came to be and no proof of how space came to be. that it was " always there " is pushed along as
fact needing no proof. one of their kind actually attempts to answer this charge by claiming when
this matter, which came from no where, but was always there, created space when the matter big
banged. really ? prove it.

yet another unbelievable proof in the scientific realm of no facts equal truth is the fantastic
story that this matter, which was always there, all in one place mind you, exploded into space that
was always there and magically, life began on what they call " early earth " and out of absolute
sterility no less... or maybe life began in the sea... or maybe life began in outer space... lots of
maybe's to choose from.

in the Periodic Table of Elements from which everything is comprised we find nothing alive. yet,
the human body for example, which is made up of certain elements all found in the Periodic Table, is
alive. and, a dead human's body contains the same elements as the living person but one body is
alive and the other is dead. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that life is not of
this world.

when it comes to real life and the departing from speculation based on dreams ( and cartoons ) we
have a far different beginning than any scientist can concoct... the Living God spoke the universe
into existence and He created living beings and living things from the non-living elements of the
earth. only in the Lord God is life. this is a far more rational approach to where it all came
from. such an approach respects the person as well as the Creator.

and, everyone knows this though their own disdain for God leads them to deny God as even existing.
but no one can run away from the simple fact that it is God who tells us He and He alone has made
His existence known to every rational person through Creation and on a personal level as well, as He
say in Romans 1:18 and following.

the Big Banger's have no self respect. this is unavoidable for them since Atheists are Atheists
from cradle to grave. you can read that in your Bible in Ps. 58:3. as He says... " that which is
known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. "... " so they are without
excuse. " Ro. 1:18-20

so then, Evolution is baloney because the Big Bang is baloney. and even without the Big Bang idea
( a Atheist Roman Catholic Monsignor dreamed up the Big Bang idea ) it's impossible for life to have
started all by itself from elements that are not alive to this day only to later evolve into other
living things.

in conclusion, the difference between fact and fiction is that God took it upon Himself to make
Himself known to every rational person... yes, even the Atheist cursing God and blaming
Creationist's for his own total inability to be truthful to himself. they must hide behind cursing
Creationist's in desperate hope of trying to look superior... a cheap cop-out stemming from denial.

[Ken]

.

[R Brown]

Another home skooler tries to take on the Big Bang. Forget it pal.
Leave the intellectual heavy lifting to those with an education -
you're only going to tear all the ligaments in your head.

That's why I say ...

"When you're talking with a creationist, it's not the heat, it's the
stupidity." - R.Brown


--

[Devils Advocaat]

There's a curious phrase "a(sic) Atheist Roman Catholic".

How can a Roman Catholic be an atheist?

[MelissA]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There's a curious phrase "a(sic) Atheist Roman Catholic".
>
> How can a Roman Catholic be an atheist?

Well, I'm atheist but counted as member of church.
Lot of people stick to church as tradition while
actually not believing in that stuff.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 18:40:34 +0200, MelissA <me...@a.com> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

One need not believe in gods to be a member of a congregation. In many
small towns, businessmen choose the church that fits their business
needs without regard for belief. Many husbands or wives remain members
of churches because their spouse wants them to. There have been
allegations that the Archbishop of Canterbury may not believe in a god.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope doesn't believe.

[raven1]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:03:42 -0400, Ps.119 <1 Jn.2:2...@thewell.com>
wrote:

The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Ken]

On Jul 1, 11:00 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.

> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight

How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
continues to amaze me

[Devils Advocaat]

On Jul 1, 5:40 pm, MelissA <me...@a.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
>

> Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's a curious phrase "a(sic) Atheist Roman Catholic".
>
> > How can a Roman Catholic be an atheist?
>
> Well, I'm atheist but counted as member of church.
> Lot of people stick to church as tradition while
> actually not believing in that stuff.

So you're an atheist but a church member too?

Other than for the sake of tradition, why do you do it?

[Devils Advocaat]

Well I know my late father was a hypocrite of that sort.

He'd show his face at church every Sunday.

Then after church go down the pub.

Come back drunk demanding his lunch.

Then fall asleep in his armchair.

And those were the least of his faults.

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:03:42 -0400, Ps.119 <1 Jn.2:2...@thewell.com>
wrote:

>

> the Big Bang Theory was concocted in the last century. today, the idea is feed to the gullible
>through media in the form of cartoons. this Big Bang idea starts off without a starting place...
>the ' stuff ' of the universe was " always there." this, at least, leaves ' scientific ' thinker's
>with a model to work with but leaves out an extremely important foundation to build their model
>on... all the while bypassing this and other extremely important factors that are required to make
>their model tenable.

How do you expect to be taken seriously if you can't write a
proper sentence? Does your Mom teach Creationism right after your
nappy time?

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[SkyEyes]

On Jul 1, 5:03 am, Ps.119 <1 Jn.2:2...@thewell.com> wrote:

<Snip inordinant amount of drivel?

> the Big Banger's have no self respect.  this is unavoidable for them since Atheists are Atheists
> from cradle to grave.

Stop *right there*. I was brought up fundamentalist, and was a born-
again christian. Eventually I learned what constitutes "evidence,"
and now I'm an atheist. So much for your "cradle-to-grave"
hypothesis.

What a maroon.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[harry k]

On Jul 1, 5:03 am, Ps.119 <1 Jn.2:2...@thewell.com> wrote:

>    the Big Bang Theory was concocted in the last century.  today, the idea is feed to the gullible
> through media in the

<snip> remainder of you deisplaying your total ignorance of ToE.

For your edification, Evolution hias zip to do with how the universe
began, it only deals with what happened AFTER THE FIRST LIFE began.

Perhaps if you cut that phrase out and past it on your bathroom mirror
it will help in keepign you frm making a bigger fool of yourself.

Harry K

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flak...@aol.com>:

>On Jul 1, 11:00 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
>> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.

>How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
>continues to amaze me

Was this directed at Raven? If so, you should know that he's
100% correct.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[raven1]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flak...@aol.com>:
>
>>On Jul 1, 11:00 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
>>> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.
>
>>How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
>>continues to amaze me
>
>Was this directed at Raven? If so, you should know that he's
>100% correct.

Ken's on our side. I'm quite sure that was directed at the OP.

[Ken]

On Jul 2, 9:59 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flakey...@aol.com>:

>
> >On Jul 1, 11:00 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
> >> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.

> >How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
> >continues to amaze me
>
> Was this directed at Raven? If so, you should know that he's
> 100% correct.
> --
>
> Bob C.

Directed at the OP #119, not Raven1
I normally snip off all useless creatinut verbiage so as not to
further promote their worthless rantings and ravings

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:42:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flak...@aol.com>:

>On Jul 2, 9:59�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flakey...@aol.com>:

>> >On Jul 1, 11:00�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>> >> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
>> >> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.

>> >How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
>> >continues to amaze me

>> Was this directed at Raven? If so, you should know that he's
>> 100% correct.

>Directed at the OP #119, not Raven1
>I normally snip off all useless creatinut verbiage so as not to
>further promote their worthless rantings and ravings

OK, but *some* context would be nice, for correct
attribution if nothing else. If you follow the above it
looks like you're addressing Raven's comment, since no other
is there.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:15:46 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

>On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flak...@aol.com>:
>>
>>>On Jul 1, 11:00�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
>>>> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.
>>
>>>How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
>>>continues to amaze me
>>
>>Was this directed at Raven? If so, you should know that he's
>>100% correct.
>
>Ken's on our side. I'm quite sure that was directed at the OP.

Accepted, although I still maintain that without some
attribution and context it's impossible to tell.

[Ken]

On Jul 3, 10:04 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:15:46 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

> <quoththera...@nevermore.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

> >>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Ken <flakey...@aol.com>:

>
> >>>On Jul 1, 11:00 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The origin of the universe and the origin of life are irrelevant to
> >>>> whether or not biological evolution occurs. Idiot.
>
> >>>How some people can use SO up many words and yet say nothing rational
> >>>continues to amaze me
>
> >>Was this directed at Raven? If so, you should know that he's
> >>100% correct.
>
> >Ken's on our side. I'm quite sure that was directed at the OP.
>
> Accepted, although I still maintain that without some
> attribution and context it's impossible to tell.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless
>
>

Two replies and neither has made it so far..Ken

[Ken]

But this one did...

I will, from now on, reply as such

On Jul 1, 11:00 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote

concerning some worthless garbage from Ps. 119.....

[bit rot]

raven1 laid this down on his screen :

> Ken's on our side.
>
>

Ken's a kOOk, see this -

http://kook.us/ken-kellogg.htm

[Blue]

On 01/07/2012 13:03, Ps.119 wrote:
>
> the Big Bang Theory was concocted in the last century. today, the idea is feed to the gullible
> through media in the form of cartoons. this Big Bang idea starts off without a starting place...
> the ' stuff ' of the universe was " always there." this, at least, leaves ' scientific ' thinker's
> with a model to work with but leaves out an extremely important foundation to build their model
> on... all the while bypassing this and other extremely important factors that are required to make
> their model tenable.

There have been in the past and are various models
for the Universe. But which ever one you lean to doesn't
mean the alternative is some default 7 day affair.

The Bible as we have it is the most recent of all
constructs in Universal time. See Job going on about
Orion and Pleiades, after the Greeks had invented them.
The Bible is essentially a rehash for older astrology
mythology. It holds no answers to today's scientific world.

Science is about having an idea and testing it to destruction.
Religion is about having an idea and destroying all
the people that test it.

I know which one I prefer.

Where does matter come from. E=mc2. So your new matter
comes from Energy of course. Having your particles
flying fast to fill a vacuum and see the matter appear.

A bit like the opposite of a fire. Matter to Energy.
It's a conversion thing rather than a pop out of no
where affair.

> while the focus is on the ' stuff '... that is to say, the matter which Big Banged it's way into
> the entire universe, the ' science ' needed to prove where this matter came from in the first place
> is completely avoided. it can not be proven by any means in the realm of science exactly where this
> matter came from... to say it was "always there " does not prove it's existence came from no where.
> such amounts to making a fact out of a guess.

And so the alternative to the Energy to Matter conversion
is God just Popped matter into existence, some how affair,
by magic ?

> so now we have on the table a something in the realm of ' science ' telling us that matter came
> from no where. this violates their own " scientific " law of Conservation of Mass/Energy which
> states that matter can not be created or destroyed... that's why they must conclude that the
> universe was " always there. " the idea that matter was " always there" just waiting to Big Bang
> it's way into the universe we have today, is untenable.

Yes see you keep leaving out the Energy part.
Think of the original Universe and a Giant
aching Vacuum of full of Energy. Then light the
touch paper.

> along with that, these ' scientists ' also avoid the proof of where space came from. to say it
> was 'always there ' doesn't prove how it came to be... the big question is " how it came to be "
> simply because it's inconceivable that something came from no where. the mass of matter which big
> banged wasn't laying on a table. no, it was floating in space as they would have us to presume.

Think I've done this.

> now we have two things conveniently avoided by the ' scientific ' mind... no proof of how matter
> came to be and no proof of how space came to be. that it was " always there " is pushed along as
> fact needing no proof. one of their kind actually attempts to answer this charge by claiming when
> this matter, which came from no where, but was always there, created space when the matter big
> banged. really ? prove it.

Energy.

> yet another unbelievable proof in the scientific realm of no facts equal truth is the fantastic
> story that this matter, which was always there, all in one place mind you, exploded into space that
> was always there and magically, life began on what they call " early earth " and out of absolute
> sterility no less... or maybe life began in the sea... or maybe life began in outer space... lots of
> maybe's to choose from.

Energy.

> in the Periodic Table of Elements from which everything is comprised we find nothing alive. yet,
> the human body for example, which is made up of certain elements all found in the Periodic Table, is
> alive. and, a dead human's body contains the same elements as the living person but one body is
> alive and the other is dead. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that life is not of
> this world.

Life terminology is a human construct.
We make if very precious because we are that.
We make plant 'life' less precious because we
are not that.

Doesn't the Bible say, man is allowed to kill
and gobble up most anything else.

And life didn't seem so precious when one version
of Christianity got in the way of another in the past.
Or to the 1984 they imposed upon the world for
hundreds of years, with inquisitions.

> when it comes to real life and the departing from speculation based on dreams ( and cartoons ) we
> have a far different beginning than any scientist can concoct... the Living God spoke the universe
> into existence and He created living beings and living things from the non-living elements of the
> earth. only in the Lord God is life. this is a far more rational approach to where it all came
> from. such an approach respects the person as well as the Creator.

There are plenty of ancient creation myths
to choose from. Most don't see past the Sun
for bring life to the planet. Sun God comes
up, there's life. It's not that deep really.

> and, everyone knows this though their own disdain for God leads them to deny God as even existing.
> but no one can run away from the simple fact that it is God who tells us He and He alone has made
> His existence known to every rational person through Creation and on a personal level as well, as He
> say in Romans 1:18 and following.

The Gnostics wrote the recent 'stuff' in the bible.
A bunch of spaced out monkeys. High on astrology and mysteries.
And a latter lot came along and called it, Literal.
Who saw off any Gnostics who tried to reclaim their work.

> the Big Banger's have no self respect. this is unavoidable for them since Atheists are Atheists
> from cradle to grave. you can read that in your Bible in Ps. 58:3. as He says... " that which is
> known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. "... " so they are without
> excuse. " Ro. 1:18-20

The evolution of variations of different
faiths even in Christianity is self evident
to everyone except the religious. Who go out
of their way to destroy the previous lot.

> so then, Evolution is baloney because the Big Bang is baloney. and even without the Big Bang idea
> ( a Atheist Roman Catholic Monsignor dreamed up the Big Bang idea ) it's impossible for life to have
> started all by itself from elements that are not alive to this day only to later evolve into other
> living things.

Well no, atheism isn't dependent upon the Big Bang.
The default isn't some 7 day creation god or any other.

Evolution is one of natural selection, adoption.
That is to say evolution by natural processes.
Where as the evolution of today's dogs would be
artificial selection. Did God create the dogs of today?

> in conclusion, the difference between fact and fiction is that God took it upon Himself to make
> Himself known to every rational person... yes, even the Atheist cursing God and blaming
> Creationist's for his own total inability to be truthful to himself. they must hide behind cursing
> Creationist's in desperate hope of trying to look superior... a cheap cop-out stemming from denial.

In conclusion the Old testament was written
be a recent tribe in a desert who borrowed their
stories from the major powers who had control
of that land for the longest time.

Egyptian Empire. Middle Eastern Empires. Hellenist Empire.

And then the Old testament was update by Gnostic
Christian who were force to use the errors in
the Septuagint for their Hebrew.

Which was then followed by the backward dark ages
of Christian book burning and Inquisitions for hundreds
of years to come. And anyone with any sense doesn't
want to see ever again.