~~The Truth About Lies.~~
adman
no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
the existence of God.
The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going as far as to say
our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God. Some of
them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The wall of
separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why
such a lie regarding church and government separation would come about? A
mistake with many ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy
also, but that is another thread.
The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
have to be in place before the Big Bang. And even then, the singularity
defies known laws of physics. Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
guess. That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact. Thereby
doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create the matter
that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
came about)
The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
ignorant superstition. Can ALL that information be wrong? Doubtful to say
the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth? Is
ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists view
point. But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
history. One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
between those that hate God and those that love God. At that point, the lie
of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
disappeared.
If I were a real scientist, with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God; to destroy
the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
God; and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
thousands of years.
--
God's truth will prevail with:
�.�Adman�.�
^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
Oh, quit whining about things you do not understand, you simpering
imbicile.
> --
> God's truth will prevail with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
What would you know of "God's Truth"? You are a pathological liar.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
You surely must know that years ago a certain Dr Zaius, a staunch
defender of the faith and minister for science said something similar
about "true science", but shortly afterwards a guy called Taylor made
a monkey out of him.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-03, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
Exactly what trouble does this cause? In what way is it different than
the trouble caused by creationists who hijack science's conectps and ideas
and distort them into an effort to say there is a God?
> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
> agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.
Who, precisely? In what sense is their agenda dishonest?
> Going as far as to say
> our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God.
The Christian founders were of course Christians. There were founders
who were not. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian nation, but
rather a nation conceived of the idea that a wall of separation should
exist between government and religion.
> Some of
> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
> ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The wall of
> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
> decision in 1948.
Of course it did. It's established in the Bill of Rights, and was
clearly in mind by the founders.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man & his god, that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate
with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between
church and state."
> This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
> anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why
> such a lie regarding church and government separation would come about? A
> mistake with many ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy
> also, but that is another thread.
I would place his decision in Korematsu v. United States as perhaps the more
profoundly disturbing, esp. in light of recent events.
> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
> their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
> far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>
> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
> Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
> have to be in place before the Big Bang.
No.
> And even then, the singularity
> defies known laws of physics.
Which isn't at all surprising.
> Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> guess.
It isn't a guess. It's a scientific model used to help us understand what
we observe. We observe that the universe is expanding. We observe the
Cosmic Background Radiation. We observe the relative abundance of light
elements. We observe time dialation in the light curves of supernovas.
All these features are explained by Big Bang cosmology.
> That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact. Thereby
> doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
> remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
>
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it.
I'm confused. Here you seem to say that the Big Bang _did_ happen, it's
just that God must have done it. Before, you were mocking the idea that
it happened. Which is it?
> Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
> physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
> happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create the matter
> that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
> came about)
The Prime Mover argument has been dead for centuries.
> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
> all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
> ignorant superstition.
Shrug. A great deal of it is.
> Can ALL that information be wrong?
Yes, absolutely.
> Doubtful to say
> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth?
If it is, you probably should be able to demonstrate that it is. Would
you like to try?
> Is
> ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists view
> point. But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
> history.
Oh please.
> One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
> recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
It's never gone.
> yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives.
Well, the first two anyway.
> There is a reason
> for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
>
> Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
> between those that hate God and those that love God. At that point, the lie
> of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
> disappeared.
>
> If I were a real scientist,
You'd know what you were talking about?
> with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
> through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
> and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God; to destroy
> the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
> God; and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
> thousands of years.
Frankly, I suspect that destroying the concept of God would be for the
betterment of mankind. Here's an idea: as humans, we are responsible for
each other. We don't need a cosmic scorekeeper to threaten us with
punishment or give us rewards.
Mark
eduart wolf
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
Science does not seek "betterment of mankind". That phrase has no
defined content.
> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
Actually there is no effort in it, and no need to say there is no God.
If anything observed would point to the existence of a god one could
start arguing.
> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
> agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.
The power of any author or judge is very much exaggerated.
Religion is on the decline since tribal and feudal systems
are outdated. No government in any industrialized country
needs religion any more. It becomes folklore and decoration.
They couldn´t do it without TV, but they don´t need church
any more to rule the people. It´s the economy.....
> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
> their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
> far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
they write " lies about rumors fools tell to baffle the ignorant" . I
strongly agree
>
> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
> Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
> have to be in place before the Big Bang. And even then, the singularity
> defies known laws of physics. Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> guess. That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact. Thereby
> doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
> remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
>
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
> physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
> happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create the matter
> that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
> came about)
>
I don't have the education to evaluate the Physics of Big Bang Theory.
To actually have a valid opinion on it I guess it will take min four
years
of university education in maths and physics, if one is pretty smart.
In my line of business I would not deal with "what a layperson can
see".
He/she can ask questions, get answers, links, whatever, but I won´t
listen long
to the opinions of someone who knows nothing. So I either have to
study
BBT or accept I don´t understand it. What ´s the problem? So I don't
know
how the wold started, and follow my textbooks with the "when".
Believing in a creator would leave me even dumber, though. I wouldn't
know
how the universe started, and wouldn't know how god started. It seems
an
incredible and very unsatisfying explanation. It only made sense if
something more was thrown in the package, like a personal God that
cares about you etc. And here it comes:
> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
> all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
> ignorant superstition.
strawman argument
"thousands" meaning 2000 , or more?
and what is "information" in this context? Anyway, are you talking
about all traditions and beliefs or did you, too, pick some?
Can ALL that information be wrong? Doubtful to say
> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth? Is
> ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists view
> point. But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
> history. One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
> recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
> yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
> for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
>
This is really bad propaganda. Typical preacher man bullshit. They
want to
make believe they invented love and kindness and are still holding the
rights.
> Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
> between those that hate God and those that love God. At that point, the lie
> of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
> disappeared.
>
By definition, atheists do not hate god.
> If I were a real scientist, with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
> through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
> and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God; to destroy
> the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
> God; and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
> thousands of years.
>
No way to argue due to lack of solid content
ed wolf
The word "Christianity" is already a misunderstanding -
in reality there has been only one Christian, and he died on the
Cross.
Friedrich Nietzsche
A.Carlson
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
>no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
>science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
>the existence of God.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy of appeal to positive consequences?
Science is a method of approach used to get to the 'best' answer
available, the most likely one that can stand up to scrutiny. It does
not have "the betterment of mankind" or "the existence of God" at its
core any more than it has the discovery of invisible pink unicorns,
UFOs, Martians, or any other mental construct even if knowledge based
on the scientific method may contribute to our understanding of such
things.
>The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
>concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
Even if this may sometimes be the case with certain individuals their
efforts would be ultimately fruitless due to the fact that they too
need to show up with evidence to back any claims up.
The biggest problem you have with this self-serving rationalization is
that the scientific community as well as the general community as a
whole is filled with millions of Christians who don't buy into your
sort of bullshit and accept science on its own merits. Not only that,
it is often a Christian interested in keeping religious apologetics
honest who is the one exposing people like you for their many lies and
distortions out of their own self-interest.
>Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
>agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.
Seeing that science does not actually support the god hypothesis, how
is this a dishonest agenda?
>Going as far as to say
>our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God.
Many of our founding fathers were the product of the enlightenment and
did indeed have ideas that are unacceptable to your typical modern
fun-damn-mentalist. It is these fundamentalists who so often distort
history just as you so often distort science, to support their own
views with equally bogus appeal to authority arguments.
>Some of
>them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
>ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The wall of
>separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>decision in 1948.
Actually, the "wall of separation" was first mentioned by Thomas
Jefferson and Justice Black's use of Jefferson's phrase was neither
the first nor the last for the Supreme Court.
>This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
>anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1).
Is there really a connection here between racist bigotry (based on
'Christian' values by the way) and religious freedom?
>Is there any wonder why
>such a lie regarding church and government separation would come about? A
>mistake with many ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy
>also, but that is another thread.
No doubt filled with your usual highly selective
'facts'/misinformation.
>The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
>their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
>far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
I've got the impression that to you "junk science" is anything that
threatens your own religious mythology and/or anything you simply
disagree with.
>One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
>Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
>have to be in place before the Big Bang. And even then, the singularity
>defies known laws of physics. Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
>guess.
I'm sure that there is still a certain degree of speculation involved
but, as is with anything in science, the "Big Bang Theory" came about
by following the evidence, developing a hypothesis, followed by
seeking more evidence that would either support or disprove said
hypothesis until scientists in general were satisfied with the
evidence at hand. I understand that even a few Nobel Prizes were
awarded in the process.
>That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
>fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
Damned that Nobel committee!
>Thereby
>doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
>remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
What a bizarre stretch for a motive, especially given the fact that by
the time the "Big Bang" was generally accepted the ToE and an
expanding universe that was billions of years old was already well
understood and widely accepted. Do you deny this?
>In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
>without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
>know it.
Nope! Not even close. BTW, ever heard of Occam's razor or Law of
Parsimony?
>Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
>physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
>happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create the matter
>that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
>came about)
This is fun. Can I play too? Someone or something had to create this
invisible sky fairy of yours and that someone had to have their own
creator as well. Turtles all the way down!
>The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
>all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
>ignorant superstition.
I'm sure that a lot of ancient texts had their share of ignorant
superstitions but there was probably some truth mixed in as well. The
trick is how to separate the two.
>Can ALL that information be wrong? Doubtful to say the least.
So, who really says that it is *all* wrong?
>Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth?
I'll play along: Upon further investigation some has been found to be
true and some has not. Religious beliefs in particular appear to be
more self-serving in certain ways. It is quite readily apparent that
we, today, have a far better grasp on reality (excluding the fundies
among us) than our forefathers had.
>Is ALL that information inaccurate?
Nope, but some of it has proven to be at least a bit suspect.
>Yes, if you believe the atheists view point.
Nope! Not an absolute by a long shot.
>But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
>history.
Good God! Where did you come up with *that* chestnut?!?! The mere
fact that the world is full of contradicting religions disproves that
in spades!
>One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
>recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
>yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
>for that.
There you go again with the fallacy of appeal to positive
consequences.
>Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
Isn't it interesting that 1) The better a person is educated, the more
likely it is that they accept the ToE as fact, 2) The more science is
developed, the better picture we have of the fact of evolution, and 3)
the longer the ToE has been with us, the wider acceptance it has
gained. Gee, maybe you're right after all!
>Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
>between those that hate God and those that love God.
Of course it's really not that simple since much of what you are
rallying against here is widely accepted by non-Christians and
Christians alike.
>At that point, the lie
>of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
>disappeared.
Wishful thinking on your part. The trends are going against you
though so, using your (warped) logic perhaps it is you who are wrong
then.
>If I were a real scientist,
Something your many posts full of lies and distortions that you are
either unable or unwilling to defend clearly show you are not.
>with a real desire for the betterment of mankind through my work,
Step 1: go get an education! Step 2: Accept the fact that you have
not achieved step 1 and stop acting like you have!
>then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
>and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God;
You are your own worst enemy in this regard.
>to destroy
>the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
>God;
Yet another thing that you, at best, only have a rudimentary
understanding of.
>and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
>thousands of years.
By getting rid of rampant ignorance, racism, sectarianism,
intolerance, and an air of superiority that religion tends to generate
and support? Sounds like a good idea to me! We can only hope.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
>
> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
No, the trouble comes from the fact that creationists pretend that
their religious convictions are based on science and should be taught
as science in science classes.
The fact that they are utterly dishonest in how the pursue that claim
undermines not only their claim, but tarnishes the image of
Christianity in general.
If atheists want to attack religion, the gross hypocrisy of
creationists provides one of the most valuable weapons in their
arsenal.
People have the right to reject religious belief. They also have the
right to believe in God, or Gods. What they don't have the right to do
is to try to push their beliefs onto others by lying through their
teeth.
RF
<ignorance and dishonesty snipped>
Stuart
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real science"
for
you is biblically correct nonsense.
Maybe what you need is "real religion".
>
> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
Free speech baby.
Like it or lump it.
You seem to neglect that there are important voices like
Ken Miller that are on the other side. If you wish to influence
that debate, you need to talk science. Promulgating creationism
makes you look like a simpleton and religion completely foolish.
> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
> agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going as far as to say
> our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God.
Lots more authors have bamboozled the public with wild tales of the
rapture
and why gays are responsible for the ills of society.
Some of
> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
> ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The wall of
> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
> decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
> anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why
> such a lie regarding church and government separation would come about? A
> mistake with many ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy
> also, but that is another thread.
You're saying science hinders religion?
Any religion hindered by science isn't worthy of reverence.
>
> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
> their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
> far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>
> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
> Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
> have to be in place before the Big Bang.
Good grief. I could write a book on what's wrong with that.
> And even then, the singularity
> defies known laws of physics.
That may be so. What the BB singularity means is likely that physics
is incomplete.
Nobody assumes we know all the physics were gonna know. For example we
do not have
a complete description of quantum gravity.
Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> guess.
You mean an ignorant lay person.
When they understand the concept of redshift, the pervasive
cosmic microwave background radiation, they understand why
BB is a great theory.
I attended a public lecture on X-ray astronomy and dark energy given
by the IFA of the University of Hawaii. Sure there were a few of
us working scientists in the crowd. But this was a public lecture, and
dang
if there weren't 250 people crowded in that auditorium. And they were
almost all "laymen". And they asked lots of good questions. And
they got lots of good answers, and a few I don't knows.
That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact. Thereby
> doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
> remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
Boo Hoo.
And you think you're going to win them back by peddling abject
stupidity?
Guess again.
>
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws,
Certainly "laws" were involved.
We don't know them all yet. Thats why we have physicists.
this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
> physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
> happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create the matter
> that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
> came about)
If God doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe?
>
> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
> all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
> ignorant superstition. Can ALL that information be wrong?
Well, not all of it.
But stuff like the world being created in 7 literal days?
Or a worldwide deluge?
definitely.
Doubtful to say
> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth? Is
> ALL that information inaccurate?
Interesting that you chose the forum to vent your doubts. The problem
with
god botherers is that they are so unhinged by non-believers; their
mere
presence causes the god-botherer to have doubts. And they hate doubts.
The self-loathing is palpable. They know they look like idiots, but
can't
help themselves.
Stuart
Tim Miller
> From a truthful point of view,
Sorry. You're completely unqualified to talk from that
point.
(meaningless gibberish mercy snipped)
adman
> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real science"
> for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need is "real
> religion".
Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk science
with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public perception and
make a buck.This would be true regardless of how you personally view
religion as being 'real' or otherwise.
>>
>> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
>> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no
>> God.
>
> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is not
free speech.
>
> You seem to neglect that there are important voices like
> Ken Miller that are on the other side. If you wish to influence
> that debate, you need to talk science. Promulgating creationism
> makes you look like a simpleton and religion completely foolish.
Neglect? No, I identify truth. God haters do not espouse truth. They a
certain ideology that is baseless and opinionated. Religion has historical
documents, eye witness accounts, written down traditions that it is based
on. Science has evidences and theories that it is based on. Atheism has it's
opinion. Period. It is really that simple.
>
>> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a
>> dishonest agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going
>> as far as to say our very Christian forefathers in America did not
>> believe in God.
>
> Lots more authors have bamboozled the public with wild tales of the
> rapture and why gays are responsible for the ills of society.
Intresting how you put raputre and gays in the same thought regarding the
ills of society. Why is that?
>
>
> Some of
>> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was
>> to ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The
>> wall of separation of church and state did not exist until SC
>> Justice Black's decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black
>> that "filibustered an anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the
>> KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why such a lie regarding church and
>> government separation would come about? A mistake with many
>> ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy also, but
>> that is another thread.
>
> You're saying science hinders religion?
>
> Any religion hindered by science isn't worthy of reverence.
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem
>
>>
>> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science
>> with their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment,
>> even going as far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>>
>> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory.
>> For Big Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and
>> chemistry would have to be in place before the Big Bang.
>
> Good grief. I could write a book on what's wrong with that.
Somehow i do not believe it wouls sell many copies.
>
>> And even then, the singularity
>> defies known laws of physics.
>
> That may be so. What the BB singularity means is likely that physics
> is incomplete.
> Nobody assumes we know all the physics were gonna know. For example we
> do not have
> a complete description of quantum gravity.
>
And this is why i call science in it's infantcy. Science, for all it's good
efforts is not complete. Only the dishonest would claim things like big bang
are fact because of such incompletness.
>
>
>
> Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
>> guess.
>
> You mean an ignorant lay person.
>
> When they understand the concept of redshift, the pervasive
> cosmic microwave background radiation, they understand why
> BB is a great theory.
>
> I attended a public lecture on X-ray astronomy and dark energy given
> by the IFA of the University of Hawaii. Sure there were a few of
> us working scientists in the crowd. But this was a public lecture, and
> dang
> if there weren't 250 people crowded in that auditorium. And they were
> almost all "laymen". And they asked lots of good questions. And
> they got lots of good answers, and a few I don't knows.
>
>
>
>
> That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
>> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
>> Thereby doing their brand of social engineering to change public
>> opinion and to remove humanity's heart away from God and the
>> concepts of God.
>
> Boo Hoo.
>
> And you think you're going to win them back by peddling abject
> stupidity? Guess again.
What do you have against truth?
>>
>> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws,
>
> Certainly "laws" were involved.
>
> We don't know them all yet. Thats why we have physicists.
When you discover God, you will find them all.
> this would mean
>> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space
>> as we know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the
>> natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered so far in order
>> for big bang to have happened in the first place. Someone or
>> Something had to create the matter that caused big bang.(that is
>> assuming big bang is indeed how the universe came about)
>
> If God doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe?
One is physical matter, the other is not. Why compare an apple to an orange?
>>
>> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts,
>> traditions, and all the other information handed down to us for
>> thousands of years as ignorant superstition. Can ALL that
>> information be wrong?
>
>
> Well, not all of it.
>
> But stuff like the world being created in 7 literal days?
> Or a worldwide deluge?
>
> definitely.
You do not know that for sure. You yourself says science does not have all
the laws. You have no idea what future discoveries may bring.
>
> Doubtful to say
>> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of
>> truth? Is ALL that information inaccurate?
>
>
> Interesting that you chose the forum to vent your doubts. The problem
> with god botherers is that they are so unhinged by non-believers; their
> merepresence causes the god-botherer to have doubts. And they hate doubts.
>
> The self-loathing is palpable. They know they look like idiots, but
> can't help themselves.
Nonsense. Truth eludes you. Yet again.
>
> Stuart
--
Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
�.�Adman�.�
^^^^^^^^^^^
Tim Miller
> Stuart wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real science"
>> for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need is "real
>> religion".
>
> Without doubt there are two types of science.
Yours and the REAL kind.
> Neglect? No, I identify truth.
Liar.
>> And you think you're going to win them back by peddling abject
>> stupidity? Guess again.
>
> What do you have against truth?
Irrelevant. You've never presented any.
> When you discover God, you will find them all.
You've never told us what makes YOUR god different than
any of the others... Hmmm....
Will in New Haven
> On Oct 2, 10:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> > From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> > no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> > science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> > the existence of God.
>
> Oh, quit whining about things you do not understand, you simpering
> imbicile.
Why are you so fucking NICE to this guy. Let it out. Tell him how you
feel.
Well bowled.
--
Will in New Haven
johnetho...@yahoo.com
<snip lies>
As usual, nothing but lies.
blende
Adman-It's clear you are on here for shock value. For an accredited,
renowned person of science to debate the existence of god is a
complete waste of time. Science is an ever-changing, ever-evolving
search for the truth through physical evidence.
To debate a person who believes in the supernatural is to give
credibility to the belief in god. Why are you not arguing the
existence of bigfoot or the tooth fairy? There is as much evidence
that they are real as there is that god exists.
Exreme right wing conservatives twist and take out of context
scientific findings far more than fanatic athiests. The difference
between a preacher and a person of science is that a preacher spews
their rhetoric every Sunday morning to anyone who will listen to their
childish reasoning. A person of science records his/her findings in
black and white and presents it to the educated and to the scientific
community to read. You don't see scientists standing on steet corners
preaching their findings. They record real data and make logical and
reasonable deductions from that data.
Adman, you need to step back and see which side of the fence the real
fanatics reside on. You my friend are a fanatic. A person without
logic, a person without reason, a person so closed minded that there
is no hope for you to find out who you really are. The sad fact is,
that beyond the "god" arguement, you are just as phony in all aspects
of your life. You are the type of person who does things based on how
other people will judge you. Why do you think that you are more
important than any other form of life on this planet? Do you think
because you fear death that gives your life more value than a gorilla
or a whale? All life is important. You will die someday just as
every other life form dies, you will decay just as every other life
form decays, and you will be forgotten in two generations just as we
all will be. You are not special, you are a mammal my friend. A warm
blooded mammal who needs to worry about being moral and less about a
ghosts and goblins.
blende
Cheezits
> Stuart wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>>
>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real
>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need
>> is "real religion".
>
> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
> perception and make a buck.
And creationism is the perfect example.
>>> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack
>>> science's concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say
>>> there is no God.
>>
>> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is
> not free speech.
[etc.]
Saying there is no God IS free speech. No matter how much whiners like
yourself don't like it.
You keep using the phrase "real science". You don't have the faintest
idea what real science is. You don't know because you don't care. To you
it's just so much gobbledegook. Even though it is demonstrably effective
at describing reality. People here who actually work in scientific fields
try to educate you, and you can't just be an adult and admit you're wrong.
Because you're so spiritually enlightened and all. <smirk>
Sue
--
Given your profound misunderstanding of science, why should we believe
that your understanding of religion is any better? - Mark VandeWettering
EdV
Next time trying breaking the prozac in half.
Boikat
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> > Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real science"
> > for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need is "real
> > religion".
>
> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk science
> with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public perception and
> make a buck.This would be true regardless of how you personally view
> religion as being 'real' or otherwise.
>
Yes. Two types of science: Mainstream science, an then the latter,
which is called "creation science", or "junk science", or "pseudo
science".
>
>
> >> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> >> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no
> >> God.
>
> > Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is not
> free speech.
What does that have to do with exposing creationism as junk science?
>
>
>
> > You seem to neglect that there are important voices like
> > Ken Miller that are on the other side. If you wish to influence
> > that debate, you need to talk science. Promulgating creationism
> > makes you look like a simpleton and religion completely foolish.
>
> Neglect? No, I identify truth. God haters do not espouse truth. They a
> certain ideology that is baseless and opinionated. Religion has historical
> documents, eye witness accounts, written down traditions that it is based
> on. Science has evidences and theories that it is based on. Atheism has it's
> opinion. Period. It is really that simple.
>
Sorry, you don't have any lock on decideing what is "truth". As a
matter of fact, your posts show that you do not know the truth from
your ass from a hole in the ground. Truth and you are alien to each
other.
>
>
> >> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a
> >> dishonest agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going
> >> as far as to say our very Christian forefathers in America did not
> >> believe in God.
>
> > Lots more authors have bamboozled the public with wild tales of the
> > rapture and why gays are responsible for the ills of society.
>
> Intresting how you put raputre and gays in the same thought regarding the
> ills of society. Why is that?
>
It's called "examples".
>
> > Some of
> >> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was
> >> to ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The
> >> wall of separation of church and state did not exist until SC
> >> Justice Black's decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black
> >> that "filibustered an anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the
> >> KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why such a lie regarding church and
> >> government separation would come about? A mistake with many
> >> ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy also, but
> >> that is another thread.
>
> > You're saying science hinders religion?
>
> > Any religion hindered by science isn't worthy of reverence.
>
> You obviously have a reading comprehension problem
Yet you are the one who is whining about science for religious
reasons. You've even claimed that there have been wars fought because
science discredits religion. Of course, being a liar, you've never
supported that claim.
>
>
>
> >> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science
> >> with their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment,
> >> even going as far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>
> >> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory.
> >> For Big Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and
> >> chemistry would have to be in place before the Big Bang.
>
> > Good grief. I could write a book on what's wrong with that.
>
> Somehow i do not believe it wouls sell many copies.
>
That would explain why Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" did
so well. What you mean is that *you* wouldn't buy it because it would
probably be filled with too many big words.
>
>
> >> And even then, the singularity
> >> defies known laws of physics.
>
> > That may be so. What the BB singularity means is likely that physics
> > is incomplete.
> > Nobody assumes we know all the physics were gonna know. For example we
> > do not have
> > a complete description of quantum gravity.
>
> And this is why i call science in it's infantcy. Science, for all it's good
> efforts is not complete. Only the dishonest would claim things like big bang
> are fact because of such incompletness.
>
The *event* is a fact, the *expalaination* is incomplete. Here,
again, you demonstrate your ignornce. Also, nobody is fooled: You
use the phrase, "Sxience is in it's infancy" to demean science, to
marginalize science, and as a *rationalization* on your part to
justify cramming your "god-thingy" into every nook and cranny of areas
of science that are still unexplained or re hypothetical.
>
> > Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> >> guess.
>
> > You mean an ignorant lay person.
>
> > When they understand the concept of redshift, the pervasive
> > cosmic microwave background radiation, they understand why
> > BB is a great theory.
>
> > I attended a public lecture on X-ray astronomy and dark energy given
> > by the IFA of the University of Hawaii. Sure there were a few of
> > us working scientists in the crowd. But this was a public lecture, and
> > dang
> > if there weren't 250 people crowded in that auditorium. And they were
> > almost all "laymen". And they asked lots of good questions. And
> > they got lots of good answers, and a few I don't knows.
>
> > That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> >> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
> >> Thereby doing their brand of social engineering to change public
> >> opinion and to remove humanity's heart away from God and the
> >> concepts of God.
>
> > Boo Hoo.
>
> > And you think you're going to win them back by peddling abject
> > stupidity? Guess again.
>
> What do you have against truth?
I'd say "nothing". You on the other hand think that your views are
"truth", yet you've rarely posted anything close to being "true".
>
>
>
> >> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws,
>
> > Certainly "laws" were involved.
>
> > We don't know them all yet. Thats why we have physicists.
>
> When you discover God, you will find them all.
Sorry, religious platitudes do not solve any scientific problems or
constitute any form of scientific "laws".
>
> > this would mean
> >> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space
> >> as we know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the
> >> natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered so far in order
> >> for big bang to have happened in the first place. Someone or
> >> Something had to create the matter that caused big bang.(that is
> >> assuming big bang is indeed how the universe came about)
>
> > If God doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe?
>
> One is physical matter, the other is not. Why compare an apple to an orange?
>
Good question. Why are you trying to put oranges in the apple basket?
>
>
> >> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts,
> >> traditions, and all the other information handed down to us for
> >> thousands of years as ignorant superstition. Can ALL that
> >> information be wrong?
>
> > Well, not all of it.
>
> > But stuff like the world being created in 7 literal days?
> > Or a worldwide deluge?
>
> > definitely.
>
> You do not know that for sure. You yourself says science does not have all
> the laws. You have no idea what future discoveries may bring.
>
But science has already ruled out a literal 7 day creation. If you
want to say "Poof", giddidit", then it is not science.
>
>
> > Doubtful to say
> >> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of
> >> truth? Is ALL that information inaccurate?
>
> > Interesting that you chose the forum to vent your doubts. The problem
> > with god botherers is that they are so unhinged by non-believers; their
> > merepresence causes the god-botherer to have doubts. And they hate doubts.
>
> > The self-loathing is palpable. They know they look like idiots, but
> > can't help themselves.
>
> Nonsense. Truth eludes you. Yet again.
No, again, it is you that has a problem with "truth". One of the
things that drives creationism attempting to appear "scientific" is to
attempt to makr it appers credible to the scientifically illiterate
"faithful" in order to attempt to justify their "faith' with
"scientific" authority. All that can be said of that is "suckers!"
>
>
>
> > Stuart
>
> --
> Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^-
Not with you, it won't.
Boikat
Stuart
> On Oct 2, 10:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> > From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> > no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> > science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> > the existence of God.
>
> Oh, quit whining about things you do not understand, you simpering
> imbicile.
Simple, direct and on point.
Biden could have used that line on more than one occasion.
LMAO.
Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> > Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real science"
> > for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need is "real
> > religion".
>
> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus.
Um no. There is only one "sceince". There is also religiously correct,
incoherent babble known as creation science or ID.
The other is junk science
> with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public perception and
> make a buck.This would be true regardless of how you personally view
> religion as being 'real' or otherwise.
Yes. That is "religiously correct science".
>
>
>
> >> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> >> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no
> >> God.
>
> > Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is not
> free speech.
>
Uhh.. Richard Dawkins going into a Church and yelling "Christ is dead,
Christ
is dead" would be analogous.
Debating the existence of God in the public arena is not. Your
examples miss the mark.
If you don't like the arguments of atheists, rebut them with better
arguments. Rebuting
them with creationism is a non-starter.
>
>
> > You seem to neglect that there are important voices like
> > Ken Miller that are on the other side. If you wish to influence
> > that debate, you need to talk science. Promulgating creationism
> > makes you look like a simpleton and religion completely foolish.
>
> Neglect? No, I identify truth.
No you don't. You espouse a bunch of religious myths you call "truth".
These myths fail the tests of science miserably.
God haters do not espouse truth. They a
> certain ideology that is baseless and opinionated. Religion has historical
> documents, eye witness accounts, written down traditions that it is based
> on.
Really? So who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus?
>Science has evidences and theories that it is based on.
Forensic evidence trumps eye-witness testimony and day.
Ask the FBI.
>Atheism has it's
> opinion. Period. It is really that simple.
>
Atheism is an opinion. Science is not an opinion.
Science isn't atheism's bitch.
>
> >> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a
> >> dishonest agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going
> >> as far as to say our very Christian forefathers in America did not
> >> believe in God.
>
> > Lots more authors have bamboozled the public with wild tales of the
> > rapture and why gays are responsible for the ills of society.
>
> Intresting how you put raputre and gays in the same thought regarding the
> ills of society. Why is that?
>
I don't. But Anne Coulter does. Now there's a religious whack-a-loon.
>
>
>
> > Some of
> >> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was
> >> to ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The
> >> wall of separation of church and state did not exist until SC
> >> Justice Black's decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black
> >> that "filibustered an anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the
> >> KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why such a lie regarding church and
> >> government separation would come about? A mistake with many
> >> ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy also, but
> >> that is another thread.
>
> > You're saying science hinders religion?
>
> > Any religion hindered by science isn't worthy of reverence.
>
> You obviously have a reading comprehension problem
The wall of separation is a phrase used by Jefferson and others. It
was not
a 20th century invention.
>
>
>
> >> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science
> >> with their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment,
> >> even going as far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>
> >> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory.
> >> For Big Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and
> >> chemistry would have to be in place before the Big Bang.
>
> > Good grief. I could write a book on what's wrong with that.
>
> Somehow i do not believe it wouls sell many copies.
>
No huh? As already mentioned, Hawking's "A brief History of
Time" was a best seller.
>
>
> >> And even then, the singularity
> >> defies known laws of physics.
>
> > That may be so. What the BB singularity means is likely that physics
> > is incomplete.
> > Nobody assumes we know all the physics were gonna know. For example we
> > do not have
> > a complete description of quantum gravity.
>
> And this is why i call science in it's infantcy. Science, for all it's good
> efforts is not complete.
No shit sherlock.
Only the dishonest would claim things like big bang
> are fact because of such incompletness.
>
This is where you fall down. You claim that until we know everything,
we
can't draw conclusions about anything.
One wonders how you come to a decision about anything.
>
>
>
> > Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> >> guess.
>
> > You mean an ignorant lay person.
>
> > When they understand the concept of redshift, the pervasive
> > cosmic microwave background radiation, they understand why
> > BB is a great theory.
>
> > I attended a public lecture on X-ray astronomy and dark energy given
> > by the IFA of the University of Hawaii. Sure there were a few of
> > us working scientists in the crowd. But this was a public lecture, and
> > dang
> > if there weren't 250 people crowded in that auditorium. And they were
> > almost all "laymen". And they asked lots of good questions. And
> > they got lots of good answers, and a few I don't knows.
>
> > That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> >> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
> >> Thereby doing their brand of social engineering to change public
> >> opinion and to remove humanity's heart away from God and the
> >> concepts of God.
>
> > Boo Hoo.
>
> > And you think you're going to win them back by peddling abject
> > stupidity? Guess again.
>
> What do you have against truth?
Nothing. You wouldn't know the truth even it sat on your face
and passed gas.
>
>
>
> >> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws,
>
> > Certainly "laws" were involved.
>
> > We don't know them all yet. Thats why we have physicists.
>
> When you discover God, you will find them all.
When my time comes, I'll have a shitload of questions.
>
> > this would mean
> >> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space
> >> as we know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the
> >> natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered so far in order
> >> for big bang to have happened in the first place. Someone or
> >> Something had to create the matter that caused big bang.(that is
> >> assuming big bang is indeed how the universe came about)
>
> > If God doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe?
>
> One is physical matter, the other is not. Why compare an apple to an orange?
>
Why not? You did.
>
>
> >> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts,
> >> traditions, and all the other information handed down to us for
> >> thousands of years as ignorant superstition. Can ALL that
> >> information be wrong?
>
> > Well, not all of it.
>
> > But stuff like the world being created in 7 literal days?
> > Or a worldwide deluge?
>
> > definitely.
>
> You do not know that for sure.
Yeah I do.
You yourself says science does not have all
> the laws. You have no idea what future discoveries may bring.
I don't need all of the laws to know the world wasn't created in 7
days
and that there wasn't a world wide deluge.
The evidence is missing, or put it this way, whatever evidence there
is is consistent with the above being false. If it weren't then you
can
make the case for missing "law", like I did with the nature of the
BB singularity.
There's no mystery in the above.
>
>
>
> > Doubtful to say
> >> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of
> >> truth? Is ALL that information inaccurate?
>
> > Interesting that you chose the forum to vent your doubts. The problem
> > with god botherers is that they are so unhinged by non-believers; their
> > merepresence causes the god-botherer to have doubts. And they hate doubts.
>
> > The self-loathing is palpable. They know they look like idiots, but
> > can't help themselves.
>
> Nonsense. Truth eludes you. Yet again.
'fraid not.
Stuart
blende
Max
Invoking Godwin's law in the very first post. Shame it's already been
done, you coulda won a kewpie doll.
If you really want to shake people up you can try going the opposite
route. Ya know, post some well reasoned arguments and relevant facts.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Max
Speaking of arguing w. imbeciles, how did Biden do last night?
Ken
> Adman-It's clear you are on here for shock value. For an accredited,
> renowned person of science to debate the existence of god is a
> complete waste of time. Science is an ever-changing, ever-evolving
> search for the truth through physical evidence.
> To debate a person who believes in the supernatural is to give
> credibility to the belief in god. Why are you not arguing the
> existence of bigfoot or the tooth fairy? There is as much evidence
> that they are real as there is that god exists.
> Exreme right wing conservatives twist and take out of context
> scientific findings far more than fanatic athiests. The difference
> between a preacher and a person of science is that a preacher spews
> their rhetoric every Sunday morning to anyone who will listen to
> their
> childish reasoning. A person of science records his/her findings in
> black and white and presents it to the educated and to the scientific
> community to read. You don't see scientists standing on steet
> corners
> blende
ASSman's here only for the attention he craves
Last month he has triple the number of posts than anyone else, from
two different addy's
adman
> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Stuart wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>>>
>>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real
>>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need
>>> is "real religion".
>>
>> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
>> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
>> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
>> perception and make a buck.
>
> And creationism is the perfect example.
Creationism is not a science. Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to distrort
quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
>
>>>> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack
>>>> science's concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say
>>>> there is no God.
>>>
>>> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>>
>> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is
>> not free speech.
> [etc.]
>
> Saying there is no God IS free speech. No matter how much whiners
> like yourself don't like it.
Saying "there is no God " is indeed free speech. You can yell it from the
roof top if you so desire. But the distorting of real science to back up
that assertion is a lie. That would be an example of irresponsible speech.
>
> You keep using the phrase "real science". You don't have the faintest
> idea what real science is. You don't know because you don't care.
> To you it's just so much gobbledegook. Even though it is
> demonstrably effective at describing reality. People here who
> actually work in scientific fields try to educate you, and you can't
> just be an adult and admit you're wrong. Because you're so
> spiritually enlightened and all. <smirk>
I get a <smirk> too? I'm impressed.
The fact is toots, there is real science and then there is junk science. If
you paid attention, you would be able to spot the difference between the
two.
Tim Miller
>
> Saying "there is no God " is indeed free speech. You can yell it from the
> roof top if you so desire. But the distorting of real science to back up
> that assertion is a lie. That would be an example of irresponsible speech.
Good thing that's not happening then!
> The fact is toots, there is real science and then there is junk science. If
> you paid attention, you would be able to spot the difference between the
> two.
We can, snookums. That's why "Intelligent Design" and "Creation
Science" are sitting in the dustbin of history.
adman
Well, since you guys think this is the planet of the apes and we decend from
apes, i can see why this would fit in to your opinion.
--
Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
�.�Adman�.�
^^^^^^^^^^^
Augray
<6ggFk.46954$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net> :
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
>no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
>science seeks the betterment of mankind
So there was no science involved in the Manhattan Project?
>with little regard either way as to
>the existence of God.
[snip]
>The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
>their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
>far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
So why do you rely on pop-media, as you did when you claimed that
Archaeopteryx was a fake?
[snip]
>Hatred through out history has come and gone,
>yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
>for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
So why do you fight against truth?
[snip]
Ralph
"adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote in message
news:m9vFk.57938$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
I thought Dr. Weinstein took your worthless ass to the cleaners on this
subject. Still can't refute what he said, yet you still use it. Yep, sounds
like a Christian fundamentalist to me.
Chris Krolczyk
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> > Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real science"
> > for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need is "real
> > religion".
>
> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk science
> with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public perception and
> make a buck.This would be true regardless of how you personally view
> religion as being 'real' or otherwise.
Let me guess: in your strange little world, "junk science" consists
of everything you disagree with, and "responsibility" consists of
nodding sagely in agreement with whatever sort of nonsense
you're supporting this week. Have I got that much right, at least?
> >> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> >> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no
> >> God.
>
> > Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is not
> free speech.
I'm getting a feeling about what you really want here, and *it*
resembles free speech even less than your bad paraphrase of
Holmes' famous dictum does.
> > You seem to neglect that there are important voices like
> > Ken Miller that are on the other side. If you wish to influence
> > that debate, you need to talk science. Promulgating creationism
> > makes you look like a simpleton and religion completely foolish.
>
> Neglect? No, I identify truth. God haters do not espouse truth. They a
> certain ideology that is baseless and opinionated.
"They a" what? Look, I realize that the word "espouse" is supposed
to be somewhere in that sentence, but you completely missed the
point: why is Stuart's example of Ken Miller - a practicing Roman
Catholic - irrelevant? Do you actually think Ken Miller is a "God
hater" because he might have problems with some of your beliefs?
> Religion has historical
> documents,
...which have been heavily edited or even censored at times when
certain denominational conferences decided that theological doctrine
A needed to be supplanted by theological doctrine B,
> eye witness accounts,
...which are hardly accurate. They're not even considered
particularly accurate in testimony during criminal trials, so
what makes them more accurate when they're effectively
passed down over centuries of time?
> written down traditions that it is based
> on.
So is Rosicrucianism. So is Freemasonry. So what's your point?
> Science has evidences and theories that it is based on.
Thanks for getting at least one thing right. As for the "theory"
part, here's a hint; it follows the evidence. It has to.
> Atheism has it's
> opinion. Period. It is really that simple.
And religious fundamentalism has *its* own
set of opinions. Period. Care to make another
obvious statement?
(snip)
> >> And even then, the singularity
> >> defies known laws of physics.
>
> > That may be so. What the BB singularity means is likely that physics
> > is incomplete.
> > Nobody assumes we know all the physics were gonna know. For example we
> > do not have
> > a complete description of quantum gravity.
>
> And this is why i call science in it's infantcy. Science, for all it's good
> efforts is not complete.
Define "complete". Scientific research is an incremental
process - occasionally to the point of incredible slowness -
but that happens to be one of the reasons why it works;
"completeness" is a standard that doesn't mean squat,
since scientific theories can be replaced by better
hypothetical models and better evidence. If you're
looking for a wholistic, finalized explanation of
everything under the sun, look somewhere else.
> Only the dishonest would claim things like big bang
> are fact because of such incompletness.
Bullshit. The *honest* would claim that the big bang
is factual because there's actual evidence in the
physical universe that it happened; this isn't some
game of "just so" stories that physicists happened
to dream up when they were downing pints at the
local bar.
> > Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> >> guess.
>
> > You mean an ignorant lay person.
>
> > When they understand the concept of redshift, the pervasive
> > cosmic microwave background radiation, they understand why
> > BB is a great theory.
>
> > I attended a public lecture on X-ray astronomy and dark energy given
> > by the IFA of the University of Hawaii. Sure there were a few of
> > us working scientists in the crowd. But this was a public lecture, and
> > dang
> > if there weren't 250 people crowded in that auditorium. And they were
> > almost all "laymen". And they asked lots of good questions. And
> > they got lots of good answers, and a few I don't knows.
(No response from adman here. Interesting.)
> > That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> >> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
> >> Thereby doing their brand of social engineering to change public
> >> opinion and to remove humanity's heart away from God and the
> >> concepts of God.
>
> > Boo Hoo.
>
> > And you think you're going to win them back by peddling abject
> > stupidity? Guess again.
>
> What do you have against truth?
Better question: what do *you* have against scientific
inquiry when it doesn't take your set of tired theological
canards to heart? Are you advocating blind faith over
intelligence because you're actually dumb enough to
believe that it's a theological commandment to remain
safely ignorant in the face of overwhelming evidence
to the contrary?
> >> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws,
>
> > Certainly "laws" were involved.
>
> > We don't know them all yet. Thats why we have physicists.
>
> When you discover God, you will find them all.
Define "discovering God". And nice tacit argument that
there are no scientists who have religious convinctions,
BTW. How very disingenuous of you.
> > this would mean
> >> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space
> >> as we know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the
> >> natural laws of physics and mathematics discovered so far in order
> >> for big bang to have happened in the first place. Someone or
> >> Something had to create the matter that caused big bang.(that is
> >> assuming big bang is indeed how the universe came about)
>
> > If God doesn't need a creator, why does the Universe?
>
> One is physical matter, the other is not. Why compare an apple to an orange?
According to most arguments of this sort dating all the way back
to Aristotle, all things in the universe have a previous cause. So
why does God - any concept of God, not just the Christian one -
get off the hook in this regard if it's an unending chain of
causation?
> >> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts,
> >> traditions, and all the other information handed down to us for
> >> thousands of years as ignorant superstition. Can ALL that
> >> information be wrong?
>
> > Well, not all of it.
>
> > But stuff like the world being created in 7 literal days?
> > Or a worldwide deluge?
>
> > definitely.
>
> You do not know that for sure. You yourself says science does not have all
> the laws. You have no idea what future discoveries may bring.
But *you* do, of course. My, but that's a fine bit of arrogance.
> > Doubtful to say
> >> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of
> >> truth? Is ALL that information inaccurate?
>
> > Interesting that you chose the forum to vent your doubts. The problem
> > with god botherers is that they are so unhinged by non-believers; their
> > merepresence causes the god-botherer to have doubts. And they hate doubts.
>
> > The self-loathing is palpable. They know they look like idiots, but
> > can't help themselves.
>
> Nonsense. Truth eludes you. Yet again.
I have a slight difference with Stuart on this: people like you
*do* look like idiots but think they're geniuses. They
still can't help themselves, though.
-Chris Krolczyk
Augray
<wSnFk.42152$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> :
>Stuart wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
[snip]
>>> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws,
>>
>> Certainly "laws" were involved.
>>
>> We don't know them all yet. Thats why we have physicists.
>
>When you discover God, you will find them all.
So it would appear that no one has discovered God, since we don't know
all the Laws of Physics. Do you ever think through the implications of
what you write?
[snip]
>>> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts,
>>> traditions, and all the other information handed down to us for
>>> thousands of years as ignorant superstition. Can ALL that
>>> information be wrong?
>>
>>
>> Well, not all of it.
>>
>> But stuff like the world being created in 7 literal days?
>> Or a worldwide deluge?
>>
>> definitely.
>
>You do not know that for sure. You yourself says science does not have all
>the laws. You have no idea what future discoveries may bring.
But since you also don't know what future discoveries will bring, you
have no basis from which to advocate a position ruled out by current
knowledge.
>> Doubtful to say
>>> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of
>>> truth? Is ALL that information inaccurate?
>>
>>
>> Interesting that you chose the forum to vent your doubts. The problem
>> with god botherers is that they are so unhinged by non-believers; their
>> merepresence causes the god-botherer to have doubts. And they hate doubts.
>>
>> The self-loathing is palpable. They know they look like idiots, but
>> can't help themselves.
>
>Nonsense. Truth eludes you. Yet again.
Based on your postings here, it's obvious that you're not interested
in truth.
Chris Krolczyk
> Cheezits wrote:
> > "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> >>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real
> >>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need
> >>> is "real religion".
>
> >> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> >> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
> >> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
> >> perception and make a buck.
>
> > And creationism is the perfect example.
>
> Creationism is not a science.
Thanks for the stunning factual admission. It's a start.
> Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to distrort
> quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
Once again: what constitutes "quality science"
in your book? What "distorts" it? How is anyone
making a buck off of this distortion?
> >>>> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack
> >>>> science's concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say
> >>>> there is no God.
>
> >>> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> >> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is
> >> not free speech.
> > [etc.]
>
> > Saying there is no God IS free speech. No matter how much whiners
> > like yourself don't like it.
>
> Saying "there is no God " is indeed free speech. You can yell it from the
> roof top if you so desire. But the distorting of real science to back up
> that assertion is a lie.
If you're not going to bother defining how "real" science is
distorted by "atheists" (or whoever you're ranting about),
I'd have to say that your assertion has about as much
solidity to it as the proverbial fart in a phone booth.
> That would be an example of irresponsible speech.
So what's your remedy for it?
Think real hard before you answer. Real hard.
> > You keep using the phrase "real science". You don't have the faintest
> > idea what real science is. You don't know because you don't care.
> > To you it's just so much gobbledegook. Even though it is
> > demonstrably effective at describing reality. People here who
> > actually work in scientific fields try to educate you, and you can't
> > just be an adult and admit you're wrong. Because you're so
> > spiritually enlightened and all. <smirk>
>
> I get a <smirk> too? I'm impressed.
You should be. Some people take you at face value,
which is why you only rate a smirk.
> The fact is toots,
Oooooh. "Toots". Bring on the writers from a
30's Warner Brothers gangster film - there's
*trouble* a-brewin'!
> there is real science and then there is junk science.
...both of which you fail to define. What a shock.
> If
> you paid attention, you would be able to spot the difference between the
> two.
If *you* paid attention, and actually bothered to state what you
think is the difference, we wouldn't have to.
-Chris Krolczyk
Augray
<m9vFk.57938$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net> :
>Cheezits wrote:
>> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> Stuart wrote:
>>>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>>>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>>>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>>>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>>>>
>>>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real
>>>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need
>>>> is "real religion".
>>>
>>> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
>>> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
>>> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
>>> perception and make a buck.
>>
>> And creationism is the perfect example.
>
>Creationism is not a science.
Then why did you try to present it as science in
news:<wSnFk.42152$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net ?
>Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to distrort
>quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
Cheezits is making money from her posts here? I want in!
[snip]
Chris Krolczyk
Hmmm. Let's see what you authored recently:
From Message-ID: <m9vFk.57938$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net>:
>Creationism is not a science. Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to distrort
>quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
So "creationism is a not a science", but you decided that despite
this, the creationist canard that "we decend (sic) from apes" is
a perfectly acceptable idea, common ancestry between us and
other primate be damned.
Do you actually enjoy looking this stupid?
-Chris Krolczyk
adman
>
> Adman-It's clear you are on here for shock value.
What part of the thread's title was so difficult for you dear?
Tim Miller
Ye Old One
Yes, you mother was an ape, so was you father and so are you.
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>Resistance is futile, truth will prevail
Then you will be happy to provide the truth to validate your claims.
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming Paul Neuman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
The part where you think you understand what truth is.
adman
Reading comes difficult for you i see
adman
> Have I got that much right, at least?
no
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
Lying comes easy for you I see.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
It's obvious from the observed coherence and command of
language, grammar and punctuation that you didn't think up
and type this yourself, and you didn't include an
attribution or credit for the author of your cut/paste
screed. That's theft, and theft is a sin as well as a crime
("Thou shalt not steal"). Don't forget to tell about this
sin at confession, or you might not get to heaven if you get
hit by the crosstown bus.
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
>no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
>science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
>the existence of God.
>
>The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
>concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
>Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
>agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going as far as to say
>our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God. Some of
>them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
>ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The wall of
>separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
>anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why
>such a lie regarding church and government separation would come about? A
>mistake with many ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy
>also, but that is another thread.
>
>The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
>their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
>far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>
>One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
>Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
>have to be in place before the Big Bang. And even then, the singularity
>defies known laws of physics. Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
>guess. That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
>fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact. Thereby
>doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
>remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
>
>In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
>without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
>know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
>physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
>happened in the first place. Someone or Something had to create the matter
>that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
>came about)
>
>The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
>all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
>ignorant superstition. Can ALL that information be wrong? Doubtful to say
>the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth? Is
>ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists view
>point. But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
>history. One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
>recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
>yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
>for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
>
>Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
>between those that hate God and those that love God. At that point, the lie
>of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
>disappeared.
>
>If I were a real scientist, with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
>through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
>and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God; to destroy
>the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
>God; and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
>thousands of years.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
adman
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>
> It's obvious from the observed coherence and command of
> language, grammar and punctuation that you didn't think up
> and type this yourself,
Wrong.
Which also invalidates the rest of your drivel.
raven1
>The wall of
>separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>decision in 1948.
Odd, then, that the phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson.
Boikat
> Cheezits wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> >>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real
> >>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need
> >>> is "real religion".
>
> >> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> >> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
> >> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
> >> perception and make a buck.
>
> > And creationism is the perfect example.
>
> Creationism is not a science. Why shift focus?
Because that is what you are pushing, dimwit.
> Oh thats right, to distrort
> quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
Great Spirit, you are stupid!
>
>
>
> >>>> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack
> >>>> science's concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say
> >>>> there is no God.
>
> >>> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> >> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is
> >> not free speech.
> > [etc.]
>
> > Saying there is no God IS free speech. No matter how much whiners
> > like yourself don't like it.
>
> Saying "there is no God " is indeed free speech. You can yell it from the
> roof top if you so desire. But the distorting of real science to back up
> that assertion is a lie. That would be an example of irresponsible speech.
>
>
No. That bit would be an *opinion*, since science does not say
anything one way or the other.
>
> > You keep using the phrase "real science". You don't have the faintest
> > idea what real science is. You don't know because you don't care.
> > To you it's just so much gobbledegook. Even though it is
> > demonstrably effective at describing reality. People here who
> > actually work in scientific fields try to educate you, and you can't
> > just be an adult and admit you're wrong. Because you're so
> > spiritually enlightened and all. <smirk>
>
> I get a <smirk> too? I'm impressed.
>
> The fact is toots,
"Toots"? That's quaint and very backwards. But then again, you did
say you came from a foreign land. So, where was it? Iraq,
Iran,Turkey, or some other country where the women need to keep quiet?
> there is real science and then there is junk science.
You keep saying that, but you never seem to define the difference.
You blabber some incoherent nonsense, but you never make it clear
exactly what you mean. But then again, from your posting history,
it's not too hard to deduce what you do mean:
"Real science" (TM) includes "goddidit", right?
> If
> you paid attention, you would be able to spot the difference between the
> two.
Yes, odds are she knows the difference. Too bad you got it ass
backwards, though.
>
> Resistance is futile, truth will prevail with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^-
With you? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Boikat
adman
But did not make it into the official constitution.
For a good reason.
--
er...@swva.net
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
>
> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
> agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience.Going as far as to say
> our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God. Some of
> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
> anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1). Is there any wonder why
> such a lie regarding church and government separation would come about?
The wall of separation between church and state is to _protect
religious freedom_, and people who say otherwise are either twisted
sickos, blackhearted would-be dictators, or stupid. Why would a
decent person even _want_ to breech the separation of church and
state?
> mistake with many ramifications to say the least. The date is noteworthy
> also, but that is another thread.
>
> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
> their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
> far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
Like whenever they give the benefit of of the doubt to UFOs and
creationism.
>
> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
> Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
> have to be in place before the Big Bang.
Sheer childish denial.
> And even then, the singularity
> defies known laws of physics.
If that were the case, then almost no scientists would give the BB
credence, but they do, so the original author is lying.
> Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> guess.
But it's a _very good_ guess, consonant with all the facts, leaving
all other opinions about the origin of the universe in the dust.
> That is until a corrupt media and dishonest book authors wanting a
> fast buck misrepresent real science and report big bang as fact.
Right. I'm sure the original author of this scrred can name two of
those authors.
> Thereby
> doing their brand of social engineering to change public opinion and to
> remove humanity's heart away from God and the concepts of God.
Baloney. Adman, what is wrong with you that you post these kind of
paranoid, unsupported ravings? If the purpose of proposing the BB was
social engineering, I'm sure there would be documents or other
evidence showing that to be true.
>
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it.
Not according to science, so this guy is a liar.
> Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
> physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
> happened in the first place.
Anyone who thinks that someone _had_ to put natural laws in place can
surely propose a mechanism whereby natural laws could have been
different if left to their own.
> Someone or Something had to create the matter
> that caused big bang.(that is assuming big bang is indeed how the universe
> came about)
Maybe, but nobody is ethically obligated to just take this guy's word
for it.
>
> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
> all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
> ignorant superstition. Can ALL that information be wrong? Doubtful to say
> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth? Is
> ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists view
> point.
Uh-oh, another person with Pagano's Syndrome: he feels he has to
start, out of the clear blue, sky babbling about atheists.
> But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
> history. One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
> recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
> yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
> for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
Nobody is complaining about love and kindness, except the people spend
their time hating scientists and smart people in general.
>
> Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
> between those that hate God and those that love God. At that point, the lie
> of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
> disappeared.
So what? If God turned up tomorrow in the actual, present, material
world, it would be a blow to both atheism and creationism, because,
plain and simple, creationism is wrong, and evolution really happens.
Whether or not evolution really happens and whether or not there is a
God are on completely different axes of the graph.
>
> If I were a real scientist, with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
> through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
> and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God; to destroy
> the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
> God; and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
> thousands of years.
For every one guy who has an agenda to destroy the concept of God,
there are a thousand that are trying to stuff their completely-
unevidenced religious ideas down the throats of others.
(snip)
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> On Oct 3, 12:13 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 5:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 10:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> > > > From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> > > > no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> > > > science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> > > > the existence of God.
>
> > > imbicile.
>
> > Simple, direct and on point.
>
> > Biden could have used that line on more than one occasion.
>
> > LMAO.
>
> > Stuart
>
> Speaking of arguing w. imbeciles, how did Biden do last night?
Are you referring to Super Caribou Barbie?
Eric Root
Steven
Oh, what the heck. Why don't I just killfile you?
....
Done! The pleasure is all mine.
wf3h
> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> the existence of God.
first what is 'true' science?
second, why does 'it' seek the 'betterment' of all mankind? who says
it does that?
>
> The trouble comes from the efforts of the atheist to hijack science's
> concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say there is no God.
and, of course, religious fanatics have NEVER hujacked science for
THEIR ends....
> Several authors have made millions exploiting science with a dishonest
> agenda to eliminate God from the public conscience
and several authors have made millions, likewise, exploiting science
with a dishonest agenda to force the public to obey their view of god.
.Going as far as to say
> our very Christian forefathers in America did not believe in God
not all of our forefathers were christian. not all of them believed in
god.
. Some of
> them did not. But in actuality what the forefathers efforts were was to
> ensure government would not establish or hinder religion. The wall of
> separation of church and state did not exist until
thomas jefferson wrote about it....
SC Justice Black's
> decision in 1948. This is the same Justice Black that "filibustered an
> anti-lynching bill" and was a member of the KKK.(1).
guess he doesn't realize the KKK was founded as a christian
organization, and that america's largest protestant church...which
supports creationism...was founded to support slavery
>
> The pop-media is also responsible for the distorting of real science with
> their inaccurate reporting of valid science via embellishment, even going as
> far as the reporting of junk science as fact.
>
> One example of this dishonest use of science is The Big Bang Theory. For Big
> Bang to take place, the laws of physics, mathematics, and chemistry would
> have to be in place before the Big Bang.
yeah? so? who says the BB was the beginning of anything at all? you
need to read more. this month's scientific american has a great
article by martin bojowald on this very topic.
And even then, the singularity
> defies known laws of physics
well...no. the laws of physics...as we currently understand
them...break down in the extreme conditions around a singularity. so
there are no known laws that can describe it
big difference
you're just scientifically illiterate.
. Even a lay person can see that big bang is a
> guess.
except, of course, one of the authors of the BB was a roman catholic
priest by the name of georges lemaitre
>
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it
wrong again. since we either don't KNOW what happened before the BB we
don't know what laws described the situation before it happened.
for 2000 years you religious fanatics have been saying 'god did it'.
and for 2000 years that idea led nowhere. can't help it if you're
wrong.
>
> The atheist denounces religion, philosophy, ancient texts, traditions, and
> all the other information handed down to us for thousands of years as
> ignorant superstition. Can ALL that information be wrong?
yep. human history is littered with dead religions. in addition, can
ALL of humanity's religions be RIGHT? we have 5 major ones right now
and they have BIG difference between them. are they all correct?
Doubtful to say
> the least. Is none of that information grounded in some type of truth? Is
> ALL that information inaccurate? Yes, if you believe the atheists view
> point. But they are sinking their own canoe. No lie has ever survived in
> history.
as i said, history is littered with dead religions. the oldest
religion today is hinduism. is that religion true because it's old?
One look at Hitler's murderous rampage, or the KKK's rein hate is
> recent evidence of that fact. Hatred through out history has come and gone,
> yet the concepts of love, kindness and God still survives. There is a reason
> for that. Truth will prevail. It is really that simple.
not if creationists have their way...
>
> Eventually real science will no longer allow itself to be used as a pawn
> between those that hate God and those that love God. At that point, the lie
> of atheism will disappear just as all lies throughout history have
> disappeared.
let me know when it happens, OK?
>
> If I were a real scientist,
i am a real scientist. you're not. you're in a poor position to tell
us what to do, since you follow an idea that's been dead for 2000
years.
with a real desire for the betterment of mankind
> through my work, then I would be appalled at how my work has been distorted
> and used by those with an agenda to destroy the concept of God; to destroy
> the teachings that have been handed down for thousands of years regarding
> God; and to destroy an entire planets way of life that has continued for
> thousands of years.
>
which god? which religion? which scripture?
let me know when you find the 'true' religion and i'll let you know
about the 'true' science
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-04, adman <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> The wall of
>>> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>>> decision in 1948.
>>
>> Odd, then, that the phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson.
>
> But did not make it into the official constitution.
>
> For a good reason.
It must be nice to remain untroubled by the burden of actually thinking.
Mark
wf3h
>>
which is nonsense. there is only 1 nature and nature has, as far as we
know, only 1 set of rules. therefore there's only 1 science
One has an established
> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk science
> with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public perception and
> make a buck.This would be true regardless of how you personally view
> religion as being 'real' or otherwise.
yes, creationism exists. it's a lie for the weak minded who think god
is a carnival barker magician who pulls universes out of a hat.
>
> Neglect? No, I identify truth. God haters do not espouse truth.
atheists don't hate god. they simply believe he doesn't exist. big,
big difference
They a
> certain ideology that is baseless and opinionated. Religion has historical
> documents, eye witness accounts,
then why don't muslims believe in the vision of fatima? why don't
catholics prohibit blood transfusions like the JW's do? there isn't
'religion'; there are religions. another big difference
>
> And this is why i call science in it's infantcy. Science, for all it's good
> efforts is not complete.
religion, OTOH, is complete. that's why it's a lie, it can never
change...can never understand a world that a particlar religion did
not create.
Only the dishonest would claim things like big bang
> are fact because of such incompletness.
the BB is a fact. what came before is unknown. you religious fanatics,
who want to kill inquiry and thought, have failed for 2000 years to
explain ANY facet of nature at all. if you had your way we'd still be
in caves.
wf3h
> The fact is toots, there is real science and then there is junk science. If
> you paid attention, you would be able to spot the difference between the
> two.
>
hasnt worked for you. why do you think it will work for others?
Mike Dworetsky
news:wSnFk.42152$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Stuart wrote:
>>
>> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is not
> free speech.
This is a factoid. Yelling "Fire!" **falsely** in a theater is not free
speech, it is a criminal offence. But if the theater is actually on fire,
shouting out and warning other patrons makes you a hero giving a timely
alarm.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>goddamn, Bob, will you please stop it!
Stop what?
>
>Oh, what the heck. Why don't I just killfile you?
>....
>Done! The pleasure is all mine.
So is the loss.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> The wall of
>>> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>>> decision in 1948.
>>
>> Odd, then, that the phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson.
>
>But did not make it into the official constitution.
>
>For a good reason.
I see you don't understand the concept of the ban on an established
religion.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
What about your drivel?
Sapient Fridge
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 06:33:10 +0200, "Steven" <steve...@telenet.be>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>goddamn, Bob, will you please stop it!
>
>Stop what?
The posting of that list of things that adman won't address. We *know*
he won't answer so there is little point in keeping on re-posting it
all.
You could summarise by simply saying that adman has posted many errors
and lies that he won't address, and only post the full list if he denies
it or if someone else asks about them.
Tim Sutter has also built up a list of questions that he won't/can't
answer, but I see little point in continually posting them.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
raven1
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> The wall of
>>> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>>> decision in 1948.
>>
>> Odd, then, that the phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson.
>
>But did not make it into the official constitution.
The phrase did not, the concept did. It's contained within the First
Amendment. (In passing, one might note that Jefferson authored the
Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution).
>For a good reason.
Dick C
> raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>> The wall of
>>> separation of church and state did not exist until SC Justice Black's
>>> decision in 1948.
>>
>> Odd, then, that the phrase originated with Thomas Jefferson.
>
> But did not make it into the official constitution.
>
> For a good reason.
Uh, yeah, because it is a description of what the constitution actually
says, and was coined after the constitution was written,.
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Ye Old One
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:
>In message <ra8ee4pltv9pb9e3m...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
><use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 06:33:10 +0200, "Steven" <steve...@telenet.be>
>>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>goddamn, Bob, will you please stop it!
>>
>>Stop what?
>
>The posting of that list of things that adman won't address. We *know*
>he won't answer so there is little point in keeping on re-posting it
>all.
I think if a few more people took the time to remind him then he would
be forced to deal with his mistakes.
>
>You could summarise by simply saying that adman has posted many errors
>and lies that he won't address, and only post the full list if he denies
>it or if someone else asks about them.
>
>Tim Sutter has also built up a list of questions that he won't/can't
>answer, but I see little point in continually posting them.
Why not? It worked with McClueless.
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>>
>> It's obvious from the observed coherence and command of
>> language, grammar and punctuation that you didn't think up
>> and type this yourself,
>
>Wrong.
Frankly, I don't believe you.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Steven" <steve...@telenet.be>:
If you don't see this I'll assume you meant me. If you do,
you might want to mull over the value of attributions.
adman
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:32:21 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>>>
>>> It's obvious from the observed coherence and command of
>>> language, grammar and punctuation that you didn't think up
>>> and type this yourself,
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> Frankly, I don't believe you.
feel free to prove otherwise
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<bc5e4910-19b7-489a...@t42g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>):
> On Oct 3, 12:13 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 5:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 2, 10:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>
>>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there
>>>> is
>>>> no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
>>>> science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as
>>>> to
>>>> the existence of God.
>>
>>> Oh, quit whining about things you do not understand, you simpering
>>> imbicile.
>>
>> Simple, direct and on point.
>>
>> Biden could have used that line on more than one occasion.
>>
>> LMAO.
>>
>> Stuart
>
> Speaking of arguing w. imbeciles, how did Biden do last night?
>
I was disappointed. I wanted to see _BLOOD_. Gore (not al, he's boring).
Scorched earth. Massive nuclear strikes leaving nothing but glassified
craters where once was a pit bull bitch. The kind of thing that would have
happened if Hilary was there. The kind of thing Katie Couric did, only more
so. He's the bleeding veep candidate, for Christ's sake. He should know to
take no prisoners, leave no survivors, show no mercy. That's what the veep is
for. That's certainly what Richard "The Texas Frenchman" Cheney does...
Not only did I _not_ get that, but he let the pit bull bitch score a few
hits. Not many, and not serious, but he shouldn't have let her get _any_
hits. He had her in his sights and let her get away.
Bah. Humbug.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<7c19e000-ed75-4815...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>):
The pit bull bitch didn't do too bad. She showed that the all time record for
most idiotic veep or veep candidate is still held by Danny "Potatoe" Quayle.
She's merely in second place. I was hoping to see her blow right past ol'
Danny-boy.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<15778ec7-7627-40ed...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
> The wall of separation between church and state is to _protect
> religious freedom_, and people who say otherwise are either twisted
> sickos, blackhearted would-be dictators, or stupid. Why would a
> decent person even _want_ to breech the separation of church and
> state?
Why, to set up a nice benevolent theocratic dictatorship, of course. With me
as nice benevolent theocratic dictator. One of the benefits of being the
dictator is that I get to define stuff... such as 'benevolent'. <adjusts
monocle, strokes very large white Persian cat> Surely you're not saying that
Your Benevolent Leader isn't decent? <prepares to unleash the Legions of
Doom> Why that would be... unwise.
John Baker
He knew that being too rough on her would reflect badly on him.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <vephe41h549jee3kp...@4ax.com>):
We don't want gentlemen, we don't want good behavior, we want BLOOD. She's
playing in the big leagues, she'd better be able to take big-league pitching.
When I think how Maggie Tatcher would have eaten Joe Biden alive if he'd
_dared_ try to avoid 'being too rough'... The Iron Handbag would have been
applied, repeatedly, about the head and shoulders. And what Golda Meir or
Indira Gandhi or even a relative lightweight like Benazir Bhutto would have
done...
He had the chance to send the pit bull bitch whimpering back to her kennel in
the snow, where she could watch Russia from her bedroom window and think
seriously about defecting so she could get somewhere safe. I was looking for
the Missouri Chainsaw Massacre. I got the Muppet Show.
Cheezits
> Cheezits wrote:
>> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>> Stuart wrote:
>>>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>>>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>>>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>>>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>>>>
>>>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you
>>>> need is "real religion".
>>>
>>> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
>>> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
>>
>> And creationism is the perfect example.
>
> Creationism is not a science.
You are right about that. However, many fundies still claim that it is.
Creationists like yourself produce junk science every time they try to
show scientific evidence for their beliefs.
> Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to
> distrort quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
I'm making a buck on this?? When do I get my paycheck?
[etc.]
>> Saying there is no God IS free speech. No matter how much whiners
>> like yourself don't like it.
>
> Saying "there is no God " is indeed free speech. You can yell it from
> the roof top if you so desire. But the distorting of real science to
> back up that assertion is a lie. That would be an example of
> irresponsible speech.
Ya know, if you're going to be so responsible maybe you ought to show some
actual evidence of this alleged distortion. As far as I know, most people
who don't believe in gods don't make any reference to science, except as a
contrast with superstitious ways of thinking.
>> You keep using the phrase "real science". You don't have the
>> faintest idea what real science is.
And I see you still don't.
[etc.]
> The fact is toots, there is real science and then there is junk
> science. If you paid attention, you would be able to spot the
> difference between the two.
It's pretty darn easy when you keep posting reams of junk science nearly
every day.
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>"adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>> Cheezits wrote:
>>> "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>> Stuart wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>>>>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
>>>>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
>>>>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
>>>>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee. You sort of said something I agree with. Of course "real
>>>>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you
>>>>> need is "real religion".
>>>>
>>>> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
>>>> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
>>>> science with an agenda to distrort quality science, distort public
>>>> perception and make a buck.
>>>
>>> And creationism is the perfect example.
>>
>> Creationism is not a science.
>
>You are right about that. However, many fundies still claim that it is.
>Creationists like yourself produce junk science every time they try to
>show scientific evidence for their beliefs.
>
>> Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to
>> distrort quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
>
>I'm making a buck on this?? When do I get my paycheck?
Presumably he thinks that you are getting paid because creatioinists
like Ken Ham get paid to tell us lies about science.
Tim Miller
Free Lunch
<replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
No, that was Kent Hovind, Dr. Dino, the "Christian" who refuses to pay
his taxes, presumably because Jesus specifically supporting paying
taxes. Ken Ham has a little criminal operation in the Cincy suburbs the
"Creation Museum". It has nothing in common with any real museums and no
science is allowed to be done on its grounds.
Tim Miller
My bad. All those IDiots look the same to me... thanks!
Woland
>
> > > On Oct 2, 5:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> > > > > no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> > > > > science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> > > > > the existence of God.
>
> > > > imbicile.
>
> > > Simple, direct and on point.
>
> > > Biden could have used that line on more than one occasion.
>
> > > LMAO.
>
> > > Stuart
>
> > Speaking of arguing w. imbeciles, how did Biden do last night?
>
>
Hey, thats just mean. Caribou are awesome and delicious, there is no
reason to defame them.
Woland
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:18:32 -0400, er...@swva.net wrote
> (in article
>
> > The wall of separation between church and state is to _protect
> > religious freedom_, and people who say otherwise are either twisted
> > sickos, blackhearted would-be dictators, or stupid. Why would a
> > decent person even _want_ to breech the separation of church and
> > state?
>
> Why, to set up a nice benevolent theocratic dictatorship, of course. With me
> as nice benevolent theocratic dictator. One of the benefits of being the
> dictator is that I get to define stuff... such as 'benevolent'. <adjusts
> monocle, strokes very large white Persian cat> Surely you're not saying that
> Your Benevolent Leader isn't decent? <prepares to unleash the Legions of
> Doom> Why that would be... unwise.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
So long as you provide the Victory Gin.
Mike Dworetsky
news:gcar2...@news5.newsguy.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not about satisfying you, it's about the best way to win an election.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <L7WdncAfgJv8tHTV...@bt.com>):
> It's not about satisfying you, it's about the best way to win an election.
They've got the election in the bag. If I had a vote, McCain would have had
mine... right up until he picked the pit bull bitch. The girl's simply
unqualified for serious public office. She should have that fact firmly
rubbed into her snout. She's the worst possible choice for veep. And it's not
as if there weren't other choices. I can think of at least three female
choices who'd have been better than her... and who'd have mopped the floor
with Joe Biden. Joe's not even the best candidate for the Dems, he's said as
much himself.
The best that I can get out of this election is some entertainment, and Joe
denied me even that.
Bah. Humbug.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:32:21 -0500, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:30:34 -0500, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by "adman" <gr...@hotmail.ett>:
>>>>
>>>> It's obvious from the observed coherence and command of
>>>> language, grammar and punctuation that you didn't think up
>>>> and type this yourself,
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't believe you.
>
>feel free to prove otherwise
Leaving aside the fact that I really don't particularly give
a shit, it's about belief; no proof is required.
Boikat
> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 3:44 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >>> On 3 Oct, 04:30, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> >>> defender of the faith and minister for science said something
> >>> similar about "true science", but shortly afterwards a guy called
> >>> Taylor made a monkey out of him.
>
> >> Well, since you guys think this is the planet of the apes and we
> >> decend from apes, i can see why this would fit in to your opinion.
>
> > Hmmm. Let's see what you authored recently:
>
> > From Message-ID: <m9vFk.57938$XB4.4...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>:
>
> >> Creationism is not a science. Why shift focus? Oh thats right, to
> >> distrort quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
>
> > this, the creationist canard that "we decend (sic) from apes" is
> > a perfectly acceptable idea, common ancestry between us and
> > other primate be damned.
>
> > Do you actually enjoy looking this stupid?
>
> > -Chris Krolczyk
>
> Reading comes difficult for you i see
Evasion noted.
Boikat
Stuart
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 06:59:00 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"
>
>
>
> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:12:47 -0400, Max wrote
> >(in article
besides, Biden is kind to dumb animals.
Stuart
Stuart
> Cheezits wrote:
> > "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>> On Oct 2, 5:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
> >>>> From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack)
> >>>> there is no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding
> >>>> religion. True science seeks the betterment of mankind with little
> >>>> regard either way as to the existence of God.
>
> >>> science" for you is biblically correct nonsense. Maybe what you need
> >>> is "real religion".
>
> >> Without doubt there are two types of science. One has an established
> >> reputation of quility,responsibility and focus. The other is junk
> >> perception and make a buck.
>
>
> quality science, distort public perception and make a buck.
>
>
>
> >>>> science's concepts and ideas and distort them in an effort to say
> >>>> there is no God.
>
> >>> Free speech baby. Like it or lump it.
>
> >> Free speech comes with a responsibility. Yelling fire in a theator is
> >> not free speech.
> > [etc.]
>
> > Saying there is no God IS free speech. No matter how much whiners
> > like yourself don't like it.
>
> Saying "there is no God " is indeed free speech. You can yell it from the
> roof top if you so desire. But the distorting of real science to back up
> that assertion is a lie. That would be an example of irresponsible speech.
>
>
>
> > To you it's just so much gobbledegook. Even though it is
> > demonstrably effective at describing reality. People here who
> > actually work in scientific fields try to educate you, and you can't
> > just be an adult and admit you're wrong. Because you're so
> > spiritually enlightened and all. <smirk>
>
> I get a <smirk> too? I'm impressed.
>
> The fact is toots,
"toots" ?
My my.
Stuart
(M)-adman
you k00ks cannot even get your lies straight
Wombat
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:DheGk.38195$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
When you work out the difference betwwen a lie and an honest mistake, repeat
that line without blushing.
Terry
snip self obsessed sig
Susan S
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:
Very nice way to describe someone with whom you disagree. If you decide
to run for office and I take issue with your views, can I call you a
prick? I despise Sarah Palin and all that she stands for, but I will
never use pejorative language meant to denigrate women in referring to
her.
Susan Silberstein
John Baker
wrote:
Personally, I have to go along with JJ. I'd like to have seen Palin
get her arse handed to her on a platter, but that could very well have
backfired on Biden.
Besides, all you have to do to make a fool of Palin is simply let her
talk.
Charles Brenner
> In order for big bang to happen and still follow known laws, this would mean
> without a doubt that a creator God existed outside of time and space as we
> know it. Someone or Something had to put into motion all the natural laws of
> physics and mathematics discovered so far in order for big bang to have
> happened in the first place.
"and mathematics" eh? I have always wondered if creationists attribute
mathematics to God, in the sense of God had a choice, and chose, that
mathematics could be one way rather than another. In particular I
wonder
Did God decide that 1+1=2? Some would say at this is merely one way to
state the definition of 2, but do you feel otherwise?
Did God decide that 17 is a prime? Could God, in another mood, have
ordained that 17 is 3 times something? (To be clear, by the word "17"
I mean the number of rocks you have if you take one, then one more,
then one more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then one
more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then
one more, then one more, then one more, then one more, then one more,
then one more. By "prime" I mean that there is no way to arrange the
rocks in even rows and columns other than 1 by 17.)
Or is it perhaps that the trivial facts of mathematics are simply
tautologies but the more advanced and interesting ones are the work of
God? If so, about how where is the dividing line? It it between those
truths that are obvious and those that are obscure? And if so, obvious
to you, or to a mathematician?
Finally, if you will concede that it makes no sense to say God had a
choice about mathematics, can you agree that perhaps ... perhaps it
similarly makes no sense to assume that the famous constants of
physics are arbitrary, i.e. that perhaps God could no more "tune" the
universe so that light were slower than he could arrange that 1 plus 1
is other than 2?
Boikat
> On Oct 3, 12:13 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 5:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 10:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> > > > From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> > > > no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> > > > science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> > > > the existence of God.
>
> > > Oh, quit whining about things you do not understand, you simpering
> > > imbicile.
>
> > Simple, direct and on point.
>
> > Biden could have used that line on more than one occasion.
>
> > LMAO.
>
> > Stuart
>
Which is which? I can't say I'm impressed by either one of them.
Biden is a whack-job when he opposes the "Drill here, drill now" bunch
when he claims it will take ten years for new Gulf of Mexico drilling
to produce oil and get to market (unless, of course, certain factions
file law suit after law suit to stop or slow down drilling efforts)
Palin simply gives me the creeps for some reason. I just cannot put
my finger on it.
So, for me, it's who the Presidential candidate is, and I flat out do
not trust Obama. I can see him damaging the economy and the military
within a year of taking office. As with every election, it's tied in
to how secure is my pocket-book. And the thickness of my pocket-book
is tied into a strong military. Sorry if that offends the more
"enlightened" peaceniks around here, no matter what side of the line
they are on.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <s5cje459kebeodos6...@4ax.com>):
_She's_ the one who said that the only diff between a pit bull and a hockey
mom is the lipstick...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<3982754c-838d-4981...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
Obama will be a disaster. And he _will_ win unless something _really_ serious
happens between now and November. The problem with McCain is that he's all
too likely to drop dead in office, and that would put the pit bull bitch in.
Even Obama at his worst could not possibly be that bad. Hell, Ralph Nader
wouldn't be that bad.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <s5cje459kebeodos6...@4ax.com>):
> In talk.origins I read this message from "J.J. O'Shea"
And, oh yeah... <http://www.gocomics.com/cleats/2008/10/01/>
Boikat
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 04:07:21 -0400, Boikat wrote
> (in article
I need to hurry up and win PowerBall so I can find a nice, relatively
isolated, tropical island......
Boikat
Tim Miller
(M)-adman
That is because you bitches have become like a street gang. You take up for
your own kind even when you disagree.
(M)-adman
Run.
But you cannot hide.
Tim Miller
We don't HAVE to, bitch.
LOL!!
John Wilkins
Oh *nice*. I can just *see* the Christian charity oozing down your chin.
I can't imagine why people are turned off religion by this sort of
behavior.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Boikat
Now that you've pulled your head out of your ass, and are not hiding,
how about addressing those claims you ran away from, like:
Claiming "dr." Kent Hovind made important scientific discoveries.
Remember to provide the citation of the articles of peer reviewed
scientific journals. Cretinoid rags are not scientific jopurnals.
Would you care to name one single war that was ever fought because
some scientific theory discredited a religious belief, and who fired
the first shot?
Speaking of wars, please explain how Adolf Hitlers' understanding of
the Theory of Evolution contributed to the cause of World War ONE?
I'm sure a lot of the history buffs of T. O. (or alt.bible, or
alt.talk.creationism) would like to see you support *that* claim.
You can start with those. Or, you can run and hide, again.
Boikat
Mark VandeWettering
I shudder to think how you would behave without religion's beneficial
effects on your character.
Mark
Max
> On Oct 3, 3:12 pm, Max <maxdw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 12:13 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 2, 5:42 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 2, 10:30 pm, "adman" <g...@hotmail.ett> wrote:
>
> > > > > From a truthful point of view,(something some of you sorely lack) there is
> > > > > no actual conflict coming from *real* *science* regarding religion. True
> > > > > science seeks the betterment of mankind with little regard either way as to
> > > > > the existence of God.
>
> > > > Oh, quit whining about things you do not understand, you simpering
> > > > imbicile.
>
> > > Simple, direct and on point.
>
> > > Biden could have used that line on more than one occasion.
>
> > > LMAO.
>
> > > Stuart
>
> > Speaking of arguing w. imbeciles, how did Biden do last night?
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was