Our Story In One Minute

[Andrew]

Our story in one minute .........

This is the story that is generally taught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related

Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?

Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
stories before accepting them as their worldview.


Andrew

[Devils Advocaat]

Poor Andrew that's a very oversimplified summary.

There is much evidence supporting evolution.

Precious little if any supporting religion.

Yet you accept the latter as your worldview.

Why?

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:02:37 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>Our story in one minute .........
>
>This is the story that is generally taught.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>
>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>

Not exactly.
The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
film it still would be a bit exaggerated.

>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>stories before accepting them as their worldview.

Of course you should and when your knowledge and education is not
enough you have to rely on experts.
Science would say this video does a fair job in a minute and a half.

Science and scholarship shows that your world view is silly and bears
less relationship to the truth than the story of birds and bees do to
sex among people.
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <AJ6dnatpZs92Gj7N...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Our story in one minute .........
>
> This is the story that is generally taught.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>
> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?

Is what what we believe?

> Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
> stories before accepting them as their worldview.

What the fuck are you talking about?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:25:13 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <AJ6dnatpZs92Gj7N...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Our story in one minute .........
>>
>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>
>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>
>Is what what we believe?
>
>> Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>> stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>
>What the fuck are you talking about?

It was just being in-your-face stupid.

Again.

[Andrew]

"Mike Painter" wrote in message news:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>Our story in one minute .........
>>
>>This is the story that is generally taught.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>
>>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>
> Not exactly.
> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.

So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.

>>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>
> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
> is not enough you have to rely on experts.

Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
and disagree amongst themselves. They also have an a priori
adherence to strictly materialistic causations only, thus they
rule out any possibility of any higher intelligence as being a
causative Agent, and by so doing, place themselves in a box
which has defined limits which prevents them from seeing,
or even considering anything outside thereof.

Therefore it seems to me foolish to rely on those who you
think are "experts" yet who admittedly so limit themselves.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Nov 14, 10:53 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Mike Painter" wrote in messagenews:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...

Can the supernatural be observed, examined, measured, or predicted as
natural phenomena can?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> Our story in one minute .........
>
> This is the story that is generally taught.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>
> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?

No. When the very first bit (the big bang) happened, stars didn't fly out.
Space itself went through an inflationary phase.

Also, the relative lengths of time were all off. All the stellar stuff would
have taken 3/4 of the video, there would have been about 20 seconds of single
celled organisms, and all the multicelled stuff would have fit in the last 3
seconds or so. The bits with us in it would have been the very last frame in
the movie.

Other than that, yeah, it's fine :)

--
__ _ | By denying scientific principles,
(_ |_) | one may maintain any paradox.
__)|_) | -- Galileo Galilei

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Mike Painter" wrote in message news:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>>Our story in one minute .........
>>>
>>>This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>
>>>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>
>> Not exactly.
>> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
>
> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>
>>>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>>stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>>
>> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>> is not enough you have to rely on experts.
>
> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
> and disagree amongst themselves.

Yeah, that's called "science". As we discover new facts, we modify or discard
old hypotheses, and sometimes come up with completely new ones. That's the
beauty of science; it's self-correcting.

> They also have an a priori
> adherence to strictly materialistic causations only,

Science is methodologically naturalistic, not philosophically naturalistic. In
other words, science doesn't ASSERT that there's nothing supernatural, it
simply observes that, since it can't measure, quantify, or observe anything
supernatural, it must restrict itself to the natural. Fortunately, it seems to
be able to explain most things by doing this.

> thus they
> rule out any possibility of any higher intelligence as being a
> causative Agent, and by so doing, place themselves in a box
> which has defined limits which prevents them from seeing,
> or even considering anything outside thereof.

Since there's been absolutely no demonstration that the supernatural does
indeed exist, science does not comment on it. It leaves the supernatural up to
the theists, who, it should be noted, have done nothing but engage in a massive
circle-jerk of navel-gazing for 6000 years or so. To quote the humourous meme
from a few months ago, while religion was busy arguing about chicken
sandwitches, it was landing a probe on Mars with a skyhook.

Guess who's had the better track record about telling us what the real truth
about how our universe operates?

> Therefore it seems to me foolish to rely on those who you
> think are "experts" yet who admittedly so limit themselves.

Right, much better to talk to the people who tell you gays are evil and fly
planes into buildings. They got *THEIR* shit together, right?

--
__ _ | Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide
(_ |_) | awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
__)|_) | -- Carl Sagan

[Dakota]

I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we
once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now
the best answer is a religious one. - Sam Harris

[Seth lePod]

On Nov 14, 5:00 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Ourstory in one minute.........

>
> This is the story that is generally taught.
>

:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related

:
> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?

:
> Although an excellent vid,

Pretty much. Although to be truly to scale, humans
should have received less than 4 milliseconds. The
history of the Universe is hardly the history of
humans. It's not mere set dressing for petty human
drama.

:

> one needs to question
> stories before accepting them as their worldview.

Absolutely. And since each topic in that video portrays
conclusions ultimately based on one to three centuries
of observation and analysis by hundreds of thousands of
scientists, then to knowledgeably question any of them
involves understanding how these conclusions were
reached in the first place ... which means going out
and doing a fair amount of reading.

In my case, that's been a lifetime of reading.

In Andrew's case, suggesting that he sally forth and
learn for himself how these conclusions were arrived at
appears to trigger an adverse reaction bordering on the
anaphyllactic.


Finally, I will note that Andrew has yet to address my
question as to why all of those researchers have
devoted their entire lives over all those centuries
driven purely by an unquenchable desire to -- taking up
Andrew's phrase -- "deceive the masses".

(a view of science that makes me wonder why, in a
lifetime spent working in sicence, I have yet to meet
one fiendishly devoted to "deceiving the masses"...)

Seth

[Andrew]

"Dakota" wrote in message news:k81lkq$o4t$2...@dont-email.me...
> sbalneav wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:

But you see, truth will not rule out any answer.

Even if the answer may have a theological implication.

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:27:48 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>> Our story in one minute .........
>>
>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>
>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>
>No. When the very first bit (the big bang) happened, stars didn't fly out.
>Space itself went through an inflationary phase.

And what is the significance exactly. In an explosion, all goes out in a
"edge", and in an inflation, the whole ball of wax remains homogenous.

>Also, the relative lengths of time were all off. All the stellar stuff would
>have taken 3/4 of the video, there would have been about 20 seconds of single
>celled organisms, and all the multicelled stuff would have fit in the last 3
>seconds or so. The bits with us in it would have been the very last frame in
>the movie.
>
>Other than that, yeah, it's fine :)

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:25:13 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <AJ6dnatpZs92Gj7N...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Our story in one minute .........
>>
>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>
>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>
>Is what what we believe?
>
>
>> Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>> stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>
>What the fuck are you talking about?

An excellent question for you, jd! Haahaahaa.

[duke]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:32:49 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Let's see you measure a can of gravity.

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:38:18 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Mike Painter" wrote in message news:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>>Our story in one minute .........
>>>>
>>>>This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>>
>>>>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>>
>>> Not exactly.
>>> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>>> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>>> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
>>
>> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>>
>>>>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>>>stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>>>
>>> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>>> is not enough you have to rely on experts.
>>
>> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
>> and disagree amongst themselves.
>
>Yeah, that's called "science". As we discover new facts, we modify or discard
>old hypotheses, and sometimes come up with completely new ones. That's the
>beauty of science; it's self-correcting.

Which, put into another language like Martian, we were wrong before. And it
ends .................. where?

[sbalneav]

Sure, put it on a bathroom scale, that should do it.

--
__ _ | Any sufficiently advanced technology
(_ |_) | is indistinguishable from magic.
__)|_) | -- Arthur C. Clarke

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

You have to distinguish between an answer, and an answer you can actually
evidence.

To the question "Why is the sky blue?" I could answer "Because it's full of
blue dust!". It's an answer. It's not, however, a CORRECT one.

> Even if the answer may have a theological implication.

Religion = blue dust.

--
__ _ | The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.
(_ |_) | -- Thomas Jefferson
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

When we have a theory for which we can't find any evidence that isn't explained
by the theory.

What's wrong with being wrong, and correcting your error?

--
__ _ | Politicians should read science fiction,
(_ |_) | not westerns and detective stories.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:27:48 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>> Our story in one minute .........
>>>
>>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>
>>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>
>>No. When the very first bit (the big bang) happened, stars didn't fly out.
>>Space itself went through an inflationary phase.
>
> And what is the significance exactly.

Huge. Stars can only fly around at fractions of the speed of light, whereas
the inflationary period expanded the universe a factor of about 10^78. That's,
like:

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The speed of light is:

299792458 m/s

So you can see, the inflationary period made the universe really big, really
quickly.

> In an explosion,

The big bang was not an explosion in the way you're using it here.

> all goes out in a
> "edge", and in an inflation, the whole ball of wax remains homogenous.

But not quite. The early universe was "foamy". It's why we have galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

--
__ _ | Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak;
(_ |_) | courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
__)|_) | -- Winston Churchill

[Christopher A. Lee]

It's the same as when fundamentalists invent all sort of lies about
those who don't believe because they can't allow anybody to have
honest reasons not to believe - of which the most common one is that
when one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

Creationists can't allow science and scientists honest reasons for not
finding anything that remotely leads investigation in the direction of
their favourite god.

Nobody "rules out the possibility of anything supernatural" no matter
how many lying fundamentalists lie about this including to the very
people who practice(d) science - they simply have no reason even to
give it a thought.

All of which has been explained over and over again to the
aggressively stupid, in-your-face liar who seems to have a
psychological need to make a daily nuisance of himself.

[Ralph]

On 11/14/2012 5:55 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Mike Painter" wrote in message news:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>> Our story in one minute .........
>>>
>>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>
>>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>
>> Not exactly.
>> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>
>>> Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>> stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>> is not enough you have to rely on experts.
> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
> and disagree amongst themselves.

Yes, that is why they call it science, not religion.

> They also have an a priori
> adherence to strictly materialistic causations only, thus they
> rule out any possibility of any higher intelligence as being a
> causative Agent, and by so doing, place themselves in a box
> which has defined limits which prevents them from seeing,
> or even considering anything outside thereof.

If you refer to supernatural, you're right. When an agent can be the
answer to all, yet answers nothing,
it will never be science. Too easy Andrew, to throw up your hands at
every turn and sat god did it. Why don't you take it upon yourself to
show how the supernatural can be shown to exist by using objective
evidence instead of anecdotal stories.

>
> Therefore it seems to me foolish to rely on those who you
> think are "experts" yet who admittedly so limit themselves.
>
>

The fact that those limits appear to be foolish to you shows that
limitations on your god is the proper way to treat (him, her, it).

[Ralph]

"Truth"??? You wouldn't know it if it bit you on the ass.

[Dakota]

It's against Duke's Catholic Church policy right up to the point that
the church has to bite the bullet and accept that it's scientific
dogma has been proved wrong once again. Even then, they demand that
the parts that haven't be proved wrong be accepted as truth until they
are. There is no oxymoron more absurd that 'gospel truth'.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <0hkaa85qcg2l8j5no...@4ax.com>,

With ever more data further creating theories that even more closely
follow the data.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ldkaa85anvnv5f76f...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:25:13 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <AJ6dnatpZs92Gj7N...@earthlink.com>,
> > "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Our story in one minute .........
> >>
> >> This is the story that is generally taught.
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
> >>
> >> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
> >
> >Is what what we believe?
> >
> >
> >> Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
> >> stories before accepting them as their worldview.
> >
> >What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> An excellent question for you, jd! Haahaahaa.

Deflection noted. Deflection rejected.

Answer the question.

[Andrew]

"duke" wrote in message news:gfkaa8do4dis5earr...@4ax.com...

> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>"Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Mike Painter" wrote:

>> predicted as natural phenomena can? (Devils Advocaat)

Can intelligent causation be observed, examined or measured?

---> THAT is the question.

Those who have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic
causations only, place themselves in a box with defined limits
that will prevent them from considering anything outside of it.

Thus per their policy, they rule out any possibility of a higher
intelligence as being a causative Agent, even though evidence
may strongly point in that direction.

Therefore, many are deceived by placing their confidence in
those whom they think are "experts", but who are actually in
a box confined where they will refuse to acknowledge any
and all truth that is outside thereof.



Andrew

[Andrew]

"sbalneav" wrote in message news:k83mlv$t70$2...@dont-email.me...

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the
story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting
there for centuries."
-- Selected

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g_udnXD3hpgzdzjN...@earthlink.com>,

Until you provide some evidence that this not-materialistic stuff
exists, there's nothing to consider.

Why are you unable to understand such a basic fact?

[Devils Advocaat]

On 16 Nov, 07:26, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "duke"  wrote in messagenews:gfkaa8do4dis5earr...@4ax.com...

I was addressing your implication that there is something other than
materialistic causations. Yet here you are shifting the goalposts, as
all evidence to date suggests intelligence resides in, and originates
from a physical organ known as a brain. So how about you address my
question as it was put.

[Caranx latus]

On 11/16/2012 3:49 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "sbalneav" wrote in message news:k83mlv$t70$2...@dont-email.me...

<snip>

>>> But you see, truth will not rule out any answer.
>>
>> You have to distinguish between an answer, and an answer you can actually
>> evidence.
>>
>> To the question "Why is the sky blue?" I could answer "Because it's full of
>> blue dust!". It's an answer. It's not, however, a CORRECT one.
>>
>>> Even if the answer may have a theological implication.
>>
>> Religion = blue dust.
>
> "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the
> story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
> he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
> final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting
> there for centuries."
> -- Selected

How'd that work out for heliocentrism?

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 16, 1:26 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "duke"  wrote in messagenews:gfkaa8do4dis5earr...@4ax.com...

Just curious, Andrew. Do you understand irony?

[Devils Advocaat]

On Nov 16, 1:30 pm, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 3:49 AM, Andrew wrote:
>

> > "sbalneav"  wrote in messagenews:k83mlv$t70$2...@dont-email.me...

And who is this person called Selected?

And does this person associate with another mentioned by Andrew
previously called ibid?

Does anyone know?

[Tom McDonald]

"Selected" is Robert Jastrow, he of the book, _God and the
Astronomers_ (1978).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow

He was a bit of an odd duck. He was, among other things, head of the
Goddard Space Institute of NASA, and an astronomer and cosmologist. He
noted that many religious ideas seemed to pre-date scientific
discoveries on the same sort of issues--such as creation stories pre-
dating the Big Bang theory.

He does not seem to have been otherwise a crank or a religious
nutcase.

I have no idea who Andrew's 'Ibid' is. Other than, of course, someone
whom Andrew quotemined at least twice.

[Devils Advocaat]

Thank you for the input, it is much appreciated.

>
> I have no idea who Andrew's 'Ibid' is. Other than, of course, someone
> whom Andrew quotemined at least twice.

The funny thing is in the thread where I first saw Andrew refer to
ibid, he hadn't, as far as I can remember, quoted anyone either in the
same post in which ibid appeared, or even in the thread. But I've been
known to be wrong in the past, and I may be wrong now too, if so an
apology will be issued. :)

[harry k]

On Nov 15, 11:26 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "duke"  wrote in messagenews:gfkaa8do4dis5earr...@4ax.com...

Scientists follow where evidence leads. Odd that in all these
centuries _nothing_ has lead to a god.

Harry K

[Devils Advocaat]

He probably thinks irony is a woman's responsibility and usually done
in the kitchen so it doesn't disturb the man of the house who will be
sitting on the sofa, scratching his crotch, while guzzling beer,
scoffing pretzels, and watching grid iron on the TV.

[Ken]

On Nov 16, 5:47 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 1:26 am, "Andrew" while not realizing the irony of this statement about his own religious dogma/insanity

> > Those who have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic
> > causations only, place themselves in a box with defined limits
> > that will prevent them from considering anything outside of it.

> > Andrew
>
> Just curious, Andrew. Do you understand irony?

Not one bit!

[Tom McDonald]

Gridirony? :-)

[Ken]

Ferrouslock?

[Devils Advocaat]

Nope, that's when the woman ironys his lumberjack shirts :P

[Dakota]

I had to look up the quote. I was surprised to learn it's from a bona
fide former NASA scientist named Robert Jastrow who has a Ph.D. in
theoretical physics from Columbia. His wiki includes the following:

His expressed views on creation were that although he was an
"agnostic, and not a believer",[1] it seems to him that "the curtain
drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human
efforts, at least in the foreseeable future"[1] due to "the
circumstances of the big bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the
record of the past".[1]

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view
of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential
elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the
same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and
sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow

Seems odd for a guy who claims to be an "agnostic, and not a believer".

[Dakota]

Apparently not all scientists. The guy quoted is the kind of scientist
who might say, "I never would have seen it if I didn't believe it."

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

Yes, it certainly can.

> ---> THAT is the question.
>
> Those who have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic
> causations only, place themselves in a box with defined limits
> that will prevent them from considering anything outside of it.

Well, first of all, you have to demonstrate there's something outside the box.
If the box is *all* that there is, then it's perfectly reasonable to stay
inside the box.

Or, put in non-silly terms: science is methodologically naturalistic, because
there's no evidence or reason to think there's a supernatural.

Remember: theists assert that the supernature *can* and *does* impinge on the
natural. God answers prayers. God causes events to happen, like causing to
"sun to stop in it's path", or parting seas, or causing global floods. These
are things that science CAN comment on. Does prayer have any efficacy? What
would it mean if the sun "stopped in it's path"? Has there ever been a "global
flood"? Science, so far, has answered negatively to all these questions.
There's simply NO EVIDENCE that prayer helps, or of a global flood, etc.

Therefore, given that theres no indication of the supernatural actually
existing, we must, purely from the dictates of reason, discard it as a working
hypothesis UNTIL SUCH A TIME that new evidence comes in.

> Thus per their policy, they rule out any possibility of a higher
> intelligence as being a causative Agent, even though evidence
> may strongly point in that direction.

What evidence? Present it here:

__________________________________________________________________________

> Therefore, many are deceived by placing their confidence in
> those whom they think are "experts", but who are actually in
> a box confined where they will refuse to acknowledge any
> and all truth that is outside thereof.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>

--
__ _ | Everything existing in the universe
(_ |_) | is the fruit of chance and necessity.
__)|_) | -- Democritus

[sbalneav]

Note that he was scaling the mountain of *ignorance*, as opposed to scaling the
mountains of evidence, or truth. And who did he find at the very *apex*, the
*highest point* on the "mountain of ignorance"?

Why, theologians, of course.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: You keep using this quote. I do not think it
means what you think it means.

--
__ _ | There is no friend as loyal as a book.
(_ |_) | -- Ernest Hemingway
__)|_) |

[Christopher A. Lee]

Lies noted.

>>>>> Therefore it seems to me foolish to rely on those who you
>>>>> think are "experts" yet who admittedly so limit themselves.

Why can't these Liars For God learn what science is, how it is
practiced and how its results are derived?

>>>>Can the supernatural be observed, examined, measured, or
>>>> predicted as natural phenomena can? (Devils Advocaat)
>>
>> Can intelligent causation be observed, examined or measured?
>
>Yes, it certainly can.
>
>> ---> THAT is the question.
>>
>> Those who have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic
>> causations only, place themselves in a box with defined limits
>> that will prevent them from considering anything outside of it.

Andrew just can't stop lying, can he?

>Well, first of all, you have to demonstrate there's something outside the box.
>If the box is *all* that there is, then it's perfectly reasonable to stay
>inside the box.
>
>Or, put in non-silly terms: science is methodologically naturalistic, because
>there's no evidence or reason to think there's a supernatural.

Science simply follows where observation and investigation lead it..

If anything had pointed towards the supernatural it would have gone in
that direction.

But lie-a-line Andrew knows this because it has been explained over
and over again.

So the real question is, why does he keep in-our-face lying about
this?

>Remember: theists assert that the supernature *can* and *does* impinge on the
>natural. God answers prayers. God causes events to happen, like causing to
>"sun to stop in it's path", or parting seas, or causing global floods. These
>are things that science CAN comment on. Does prayer have any efficacy? What
>would it mean if the sun "stopped in it's path"? Has there ever been a "global
>flood"? Science, so far, has answered negatively to all these questions.
>There's simply NO EVIDENCE that prayer helps, or of a global flood, etc.

If you believe in miracles you can't do science, because you can never
know whether a result is because that's the way things are, or because
it's a miracle.

>Therefore, given that theres no indication of the supernatural actually
>existing, we must, purely from the dictates of reason, discard it as a working
>hypothesis UNTIL SUCH A TIME that new evidence comes in.

But don't hold your breath waiting.

>> Thus per their policy, they rule out any possibility of a higher
>> intelligence as being a causative Agent, even though evidence
>> may strongly point in that direction.

Like I said, Andrew just can't stop lying.

He and his fellow religious nutters have to, because they can't let
people have honest reasons not to swallow their bullshit.

>What evidence? Present it here:
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>> Therefore, many are deceived by placing their confidence in
>> those whom they think are "experts", but who are actually in
>> a box confined where they will refuse to acknowledge any
>> and all truth that is outside thereof.

More of Andrew's lies.

>> Andrew

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:23:55 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:32:49 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>
>>>On Nov 14, 10:53 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Mike Painter" wrote in messagenews:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...

>>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>Our story in one minute .........
>>>>
>>>> >>This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>>
>>>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> >>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>>
>>>> > Not exactly.
>>>> > The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>>>> > Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>>>> > film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
>>>>
>>>> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>>>>
>>>> >>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>>> >>stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>>>>
>>>> > Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>>>> > is not enough you have to rely on experts.
>>>>
>>>> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
>>>> and disagree amongst themselves. They also have an a priori
>>>> adherence to strictly materialistic causations only, thus they
>>>> rule out any possibility of any higher intelligence as being a
>>>> causative Agent, and by so doing, place themselves in a box
>>>> which has defined limits which prevents them from seeing,
>>>> or even considering anything outside thereof.
>>>>

>>>> Therefore it seems to me foolish to rely on those who you
>>>> think are "experts" yet who admittedly so limit themselves.
>>>

>>>Can the supernatural be observed, examined, measured, or predicted as
>>>natural phenomena can?
>>

>> Let's see you measure a can of gravity.
>
>Sure, put it on a bathroom scale, that should do it.

It won't move.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:28:35 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:38:18 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> "Mike Painter" wrote in message news:ipk7a8deb6momq9q1...@4ax.com...

>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Our story in one minute .........
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly.
>>>>> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>>>>> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>>>>> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
>>>>
>>>> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>>>>
>>>>>>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>>>>>stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>>>>> is not enough you have to rely on experts.
>>>>
>>>> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
>>>> and disagree amongst themselves.
>>>

>>>Yeah, that's called "science". As we discover new facts, we modify or discard
>>>old hypotheses, and sometimes come up with completely new ones. That's the
>>>beauty of science; it's self-correcting.
>>

>> Which, put into another language like Martian, we were wrong before. And it
>> ends .................. where?
>

>When we have a theory for which we can't find any evidence that isn't explained
>by the theory.

>What's wrong with being wrong, and correcting your error?

Or put another way, coming up with another error.

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:43:33 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

But another error none the less.

[duke]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:28 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:27:48 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>> Our story in one minute .........
>>>>
>>>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>

>>>No. When the very first bit (the big bang) happened, stars didn't fly out.
>>>Space itself went through an inflationary phase.
>>
>> And what is the significance exactly.
>
>Huge. Stars can only fly around at fractions of the speed of light, whereas
>the inflationary period expanded the universe a factor of about 10^78. That's,
>like:

>10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

>The speed of light is:
>299792458 m/s

>So you can see, the inflationary period made the universe really big, really
>quickly.

The red shift says you're wrong on that "outward speed". If inflation speed was
greater than light speed, which nothing can go faster than light speed, all the
universe would be dark.

>> In an explosion,
>The big bang was not an explosion in the way you're using it here.

>> all goes out in a
>> "edge", and in an inflation, the whole ball of wax remains homogenous.

>But not quite. The early universe was "foamy". It's why we have galaxies.

Or as the big boys put it, soupy for the first 300,000 years meaning we can
never "see" closer to the BB than that.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

[sbalneav]

It's not supposed to. If you have moving cans, you have some kind of vermin
problem.

--
__ _ | No furniture so charming as books.
(_ |_) | -- Sydney Smith
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

... yeah? So? Are you so insecure, you need a life of absolutes?


--
__ _ | It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,
(_ |_) | but the foolish to be a slave to them.
__)|_) | -- Epictetus

[sbalneav]

Maybe not. Sooner or later, you might get it right. I don't forsee a lot of
changes to our theory of gravity with respect to how it functions here on
earth. Might we come up with some new information as to how it functions, say,
in a black hole? Sure. But unless you're planning a trip to a black hole, it
won't affect you.

--
__ _ | Knowledge: noun. The small part of ignorance that we
(_ |_) | arrange and classify.
__)|_) | -- Ambrose Bierce. "The Devil's Dictionary"

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:35:28 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:27:48 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>> Our story in one minute .........
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>>>
>>>>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>>
>>>>No. When the very first bit (the big bang) happened, stars didn't fly out.
>>>>Space itself went through an inflationary phase.
>>>
>>> And what is the significance exactly.
>>
>>Huge. Stars can only fly around at fractions of the speed of light, whereas
>>the inflationary period expanded the universe a factor of about 10^78. That's,
>>like:
>
>>10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
>
>>The speed of light is:
>>299792458 m/s
>
>>So you can see, the inflationary period made the universe really big, really
>>quickly.
>
> The red shift says you're wrong on that "outward speed". If inflation speed was
> greater than light speed, which nothing can go faster than light speed, all the
> universe would be dark.

Dude, I can't believe you managed to be so wrong, and yet still manage to
stumble onto the right answer. It is, *in fact* the problem scientists faced
with why the sky *IS IN FACT* dark, that lead to the hypothesis of the big
bang, and the inflationary period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

During the inflationary period, which lasted from 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds
after the big bang. Meaning, it happened for a REALLY short period of time,
REALLY soon after the big bang. Stars *weren't* there at that time, just a
superheated wash of quarks. Stars didn't come until LONG after the
inflationary period. By 10^-32 seconds (i.e.:
.00000000000000000000000000000001) after the big bang, C became the speed
limit. Stars didn't form until 150 *million* years or so after the big bang.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Also:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/how-big-universe.html

>>> In an explosion,
>>The big bang was not an explosion in the way you're using it here.
>
>>> all goes out in a
>>> "edge", and in an inflation, the whole ball of wax remains homogenous.
>
>>But not quite. The early universe was "foamy". It's why we have galaxies.
>
> Or as the big boys put it, soupy

No, they just about all use the word foamy, like bubbles. Think soap bubbles.
Where the liquid and soap is is where the galaxies formed, with big "voids" in
there with no significant star or galaxy formation.

> for the first 300,000 years meaning we can
> never "see" closer to the BB than that.

That's correct.

But we can DEDUCE what happened. It's like CSI. We've got a jimmied lock,
some muddy footprints on the carpet, and a body on the floor with it's noggin
smashed in from the fire poker. We didn't see the crime, but we can figure out
what happened by looking at the results.

Duke, have you READ any of these links? Have you seen how INTERESTING and
FASCINATING this stuff is? How stars form? How black holes come about? The
universe is absolutely marvellous, and you don't need to have 10's of thousands
of dollars of equipment to study it, you can just go into your back yard with a
set of binocs and LOOK at the sky! When you've got all these absolutely
incredible facts and hypotheses as to how the universe really works, why would
you even WANT a stupid old story about how some magical man from fantasy land
just poofed it all into being? The story isn't even *interesting*.

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

--
__ _ | The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.
(_ |_) | -- Thomas Jefferson
__)|_) |

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <lb2da85gt9von08as...@4ax.com>,

What's wrong with error? You can never learn anything new if you don't
make errors along the way.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Christopher A. Lee]

These morons imagine revelation is the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so in what passes for their minds it gets it
right the first time.

And they expect science to be something equivalent, also getting it
right the first time.

[Andrew]

"Dakota" wrote in message news:k85q79$t3r$1...@dont-email.me...

Perhaps he had the wisdom and fortitude to break out of the Box.

[Ken]

The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that you can't fix
stupid.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-49BC7D...@news.giganews.com...
> duke wrote:
>> sbalneav wrote:

>> >In alt.atheism Andrew wrote:
>> >> "Mike Painter" wrote :

>> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Our story in one minute .........
>> >>>>
>> >>>>This is the story that is generally taught.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>> >>>>
>> >>> Not exactly.
>> >>> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>> >>> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>> >>> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
>> >>
>> >> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>> >>
>> >>>>Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>> >>>>stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>> >>> is not enough you have to rely on experts.
>> >>
>> >> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
>> >> and disagree amongst themselves.
>> >
>> >Yeah, that's called "science". As we discover new facts, we modify or
>> >discard old hypotheses, and sometimes come up with completely new ones.
>> > That's the>beauty of science; it's self-correcting.
>>
>> Which, put into another language like Martian, we were wrong before. And it
>> ends .................. where?
>
> With ever more data further creating theories that even more closely
> follow the data.

Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.

[Ken]

On Nov 17, 12:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote his
usual load of worthless crapola not worth repeating

Which marvelously confirms the truth that he is a GULLIBLE UNEDUCATED
FOOL

[Ralph]

Right, you damn fool.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3uqdnU3Rv9CKbDrN...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> news:hlwdjsd2-49BC7D...@news.giganews.com...

> > With ever more data further creating theories that even more closely
> > follow the data.
>
> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.

How does it do that? Let's see your chain of logic that leads to that
"conclusion".

[Ken]

On Nov 17, 5:21 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>  "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote this shit:

> > Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
>
> How does it do that? Let's see your chain of logic that leads to that
> "conclusion".
>
> --
> JD

More like a chain of delusions....

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.

Please provide an example of a discovery which, in your mind, would disprove
creation.

--
__ _ | I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought,
(_ |_) | but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
__)|_) | -- Albert Einstein

[duke]

How do you know if you have a can of gravity?

[duke]

Nope, just advising you that we go from one error to the next error and then to
the next, etc..

[duke]

God won't wait forever.

> I don't forsee a lot of
>changes to our theory of gravity with respect to how it functions here on
>earth. Might we come up with some new information as to how it functions, say,
>in a black hole? Sure. But unless you're planning a trip to a black hole, it
>won't affect you.

Maybe the gravitational constant is different in another galaxy.

[duke]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:32:31 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

Well, don't cross the street without looking both ways.

[duke]

And what are you talking about?

[duke]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:55:57 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:

>The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that you can't fix
>stupid.

I wouldn't trade with you for all the tea in China.

[duke]

Yep, creation is the Donny viable answer.

[duke]

Hey, you guessing. If the speed of inflation is greater than the speed of
light, which is itself impossible, the sky would be pitch black

>It is, *in fact* the problem scientists faced
>with why the sky *IS IN FACT* dark, that lead to the hypothesis of the big
>bang, and the inflationary period.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

>> for the first 300,000 years meaning we can
>> never "see" closer to the BB than that.
>That's correct.

I know.

>But we can DEDUCE what happened. It's like CSI. We've got a jimmied lock,
>some muddy footprints on the carpet, and a body on the floor with it's noggin
>smashed in from the fire poker. We didn't see the crime, but we can figure out
>what happened by looking at the results.

>Duke, have you READ any of these links? Have you seen how INTERESTING and
>FASCINATING this stuff is? How stars form? How black holes come about? The
>universe is absolutely marvellous, and you don't need to have 10's of thousands
>of dollars of equipment to study it, you can just go into your back yard with a
>set of binocs and LOOK at the sky! When you've got all these absolutely
>incredible facts and hypotheses as to how the universe really works, why would
>you even WANT a stupid old story about how some magical man from fantasy land
>just poofed it all into being? The story isn't even *interesting*.

I know.

[Ken]

On Nov 16, 5:56 pm, Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:

> The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is proof that you can't fix
> stupid.

Anyone need more evidence to support that statement?

[harry k]

On Nov 18, 3:11 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:41:43 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >In alt.atheism duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:23:55 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> >>>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:32:49 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

And you are an outstanding example of that.

Harry K

[Devils Advocaat]

Poor duke, he might come in cans, but gravity doesn't.

[Andrew]

"sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message news:k85qve$omc$2...@dont-email.me...

> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>> "sbalneav" wrote in message news:k83mlv$t70$2...@dont-email.me...

>>> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>>>> "Dakota" wrote in message news:k81lkq$o4t$2...@dont-email.me...

>>>>> sbalneav wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Painter" wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our story in one minute .........
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the story that is generally taught.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSt9tm3RoUU&feature=related
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now here's the question. Is this what you believe?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not exactly.
>>>>>>>> The scale was a bit off even thought it went 1:37 rather than 1:00.
>>>>>>>> Had the scenes with man in them taken up just the last second of the
>>>>>>>> film it still would be a bit exaggerated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So other than the scale, you believe the story as presented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Although an excellent vid, one needs to question
>>>>>>>>> stories before accepting them as their worldview.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course you should and when your knowledge and education
>>>>>>>> is not enough you have to rely on experts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that those who you call "experts'' change their minds
>>>>>>> and disagree amongst themselves.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yeah, that's called "science". As we discover new facts, we modify or discard
>>>>>> old hypotheses, and sometimes come up with completely new ones. That's the
>>>>>> beauty of science; it's self-correcting.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> They also have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic causations only,
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Science is methodologically naturalistic, not philosophically naturalistic. In
>>>>>> other words, science doesn't ASSERT that there's nothing supernatural, it
>>>>>> simply observes that, since it can't measure, quantify, or observe anything
>>>>>> supernatural, it must restrict itself to the natural. Fortunately, it seems to
>>>>>> be able to explain most things by doing this.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thus they rule out any possibility of any higher intelligence as being a
>>>>>>> causative Agent, and by so doing, place themselves in a box which has
>>>>>>> defined limits which prevents them from seeing, or even considering
>>>>>>> anything outside thereof.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Since there's been absolutely no demonstration that the supernatural does
>>>>>> indeed exist, science does not comment on it. It leaves the supernatural up to
>>>>>> the theists, who, it should be noted, have done nothing but engage in a massive
>>>>>> circle-jerk of navel-gazing for 6000 years or so. To quote the humourous meme
>>>>>> from a few months ago, while religion was busy arguing about chicken
>>>>>> sandwitches, it was landing a probe on Mars with a skyhook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess who's had the better track record about telling us what the real truth
>>>>>> about how our universe operates?

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore it seems to me foolish to rely on those who you
>>>>>>> think are "experts" yet who admittedly so limit themselves.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Right, much better to talk to the people who tell you gays are evil and fly
>>>>>> planes into buildings. They got *THEIR* shit together, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we
>>>>> once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now
>>>>> the best answer is a religious one. - Sam Harris

>>>>
>>>> But you see, truth will not rule out any answer.
>>>
>>> You have to distinguish between an answer, and an answer you can actually
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> To the question "Why is the sky blue?" I could answer "Because it's full of
>>> blue dust!". It's an answer. It's not, however, a CORRECT one.
>>>
>>>> Even if the answer may have a theological implication.
>>>
>>> Religion = blue dust.
>>
>> "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the
>> story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
>> he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the
>> final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting
>> there for centuries."
>> -- Selected
>

> Note that he was scaling the mountain of *ignorance*, as
> opposed to scaling the mountains of evidence, or truth.

He _THINKS_ he is scaling the mountains of truth, but as long
as he remains inside of his little box, he remains in his pursuits
..scaling the mountains of ignorance.

Those who have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic
causations only, place themselves in a box with defined limits
that will _prevent_ them from considering _anything_outside
thereof.

Thus per their policy, they rule out any possibility of a higher
Intelligence as being a *causative Agent*...even though all of
the evidence may strongly point in that direction.

Thus he will remain in the "mountains of ignorance" until
he can break free of the confining limitations of the "box".


Andrew

[Andrew]

"sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message news:k89s4s$mu7$2...@dont-email.me...

> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
>
> Please provide an example of a discovery which, in
> your mind, would disprove creation.

All discoveries serve to support the truth of Creation.

[BroilJAB]

Phone your Congressman. Do NOT help Obama.
We want Obama and anyone with him over the cliff.
This election was stolen from President Romney.
Pray for Obama fraud to be quickly Annihilated.

If you do not currently possess a high power rifle
then go buy one and boxes of ammo, for self protection.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <D56dnUjqSocOYTTN...@earthlink.com>,

Yep. It's called sanity. You might try it some day.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 19 Nov, 09:32, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "sbalneav" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in messagenews:k89s4s$mu7$2...@dont-email.me...

> > In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
>
> > Please provide an example of a discovery which, in
> > your mind, would disprove creation.
>
> All discoveries serve to support the truth of Creation.

Then you should be able to demonstrate the truth of your claims.

[sbalneav]

All cans are cans of gravity, as all objects have gravity. The more massive
the can, the more gravity it has.

--
__ _ | Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
(_ |_) | doesn't go away.
__)|_) | -- Philip K. Dick

[sbalneav]

Well, it's not something that is bounded and contained BY the can, at any rate.

--
__ _ | Grass is the forgiveness of nature - her constant
(_ |_) | benediction. Forests decay, harvests perish, flowers
__)|_) | vanish, but grass is immortal. -- Brian Ingalls

[sbalneav]

Then maybe he should quit climbing the mountain with the theologians on top,
and climb the mountain of science, which has FACTS AND OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE on
top.

> Those who have an a priori adherence to strictly materialistic
> causations only, place themselves in a box with defined limits
> that will _prevent_ them from considering _anything_outside
> thereof.

I can imagine a world where, behind the scenes, there are a myriad of little
blue men running around, moving the atoms in the universe about. For every
atom, there is a little blue man, made out of very VERY tiny particles, moving
the atoms to and fro. This would very nicely explain the double slit
experiment; these blue men like making patterns, as they are pleasing to the
eye.

> Thus per their policy, they rule out any possibility of a higher
> Intelligence as being a *causative Agent*...even though all of
> the evidence may strongly point in that direction.

What evidence? I've asked you this before. What *evidence* do we have for a
causitive agent?

--
__ _ | Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
(_ |_) | sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
__)|_) | is quite staggering. -- Arthur C. Clarke

[harry k]

On Nov 19, 1:32 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "sbalneav" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in messagenews:k85qve$omc$2...@dont-email.me...

> > In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> >> "sbalneav"  wrote in messagenews:k83mlv$t70$2...@dont-email.me...

> >>> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> >>>> "Dakota" wrote in messagenews:k81lkq$o4t$2...@dont-email.me...

If you want them to consider stuff 'outside the box' all you have to
do is show them some evidence it exists. What's holding you back?

Harry K

[harry k]

On Nov 19, 1:32 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "sbalneav" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in messagenews:k89s4s$mu7$2...@dont-email.me...

> > In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
>
> > Please provide an example of a discovery which, in
> > your mind, would disprove creation.
>
> All discoveries serve to support the truth of Creation.

Like the discovery several centuries old that there was no Noahic
Flude? What's up with that?

Harry K

[sbalneav]

But the point it, with science, we HOME IN on the truth. As we go, we make
progressively smaller and smaller errors, and eventually, we arrive at
something that explains all the evidence, with no evidence existing that can't
be explained by the hypothesis.

First we thought the sun went around the earth; grossly wrong. Then we thought
the planets went around the sun in circular orbits. Better, but we were still
seeing planets where they shouldn't have been, if the orbits were circular.
Then we revised it to elliptical orbits; even better! Gives us a high degree
of accuracy, but still not perfect.

These days, we take into account the planets gravitational effects on each
other, relativistic effects, etc. It's still not precise; the planets are
observed to be at *very* small differences from predicted; a fraction of a
fraction of a percent. Is it *absolute* truth? No, there's still no formula
that you can plug into that will tell you exactly where a planet will be TO THE
MILLIMETER, but we don't friggin' think the sun gets towed across the skies by
the Gods in a chariot anymore, either.

Science never *claims* to give you truth. Science says "I'll give you a good
model that will give you ever more accurate predictions".

I can live with some error bars.

--
__ _ | Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(_ |_) | Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
__)|_) | -- Groucho Marx

[sbalneav]

Seeing as how there's absolutely no reason to think he exists, it's not
something I worry about.

>> I don't forsee a lot of
>>changes to our theory of gravity with respect to how it functions here on
>>earth. Might we come up with some new information as to how it functions, say,
>>in a black hole? Sure. But unless you're planning a trip to a black hole, it
>>won't affect you.
>
> Maybe the gravitational constant is different in another galaxy.

There's no evidence of that; other galaxies are *observed* to behave *exactly*
the same way this one does. See, that's why science beats religion every time.
Science doesn't take anyone's word for it, science goes out an MEASURES things.

It's exactly that reason that the motto of the Royal Society, Britain's oldest
scientific society is "Nullius in verba". You can translate that as either
"Take nobody's word of it" or "On the word of no-one".

--
__ _ | When I look upon men of science and philosophers, man is
(_ |_) | the wisest of all beings; when I look upon priests and
__)|_) | prophets nothing is as contemptible as man. -- Diogenes

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message news:k89s4s$mu7$2...@dont-email.me...
>> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
>>
>> Please provide an example of a discovery which, in
>> your mind, would disprove creation.
>
> All discoveries serve to support the truth of Creation.

See, that's the problem; to you, your creation hypothesis is *unfalsifiable*.
ALL discoveries serve to support the truth of creation.

See, why won't you think outside the box, and consider the fact that maybe
there *IS* no supernatural, no creator? You're confined to this box that tells
you there *must* be one.

--
__ _ | There are two types of people in the world:
(_ |_) | 1. Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

Nope.

> the sky would be pitch black

It is; with the exception of the stars that are nearby.

>>It is, *in fact* the problem scientists faced
>>with why the sky *IS IN FACT* dark, that lead to the hypothesis of the big
>>bang, and the inflationary period.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
>
>>> for the first 300,000 years meaning we can
>>> never "see" closer to the BB than that.
>>That's correct.
>
> I know.

And that would only happen in a universe that went through inflation.

>>But we can DEDUCE what happened. It's like CSI. We've got a jimmied lock,
>>some muddy footprints on the carpet, and a body on the floor with it's noggin
>>smashed in from the fire poker. We didn't see the crime, but we can figure out
>>what happened by looking at the results.
>
>>Duke, have you READ any of these links? Have you seen how INTERESTING and
>>FASCINATING this stuff is? How stars form? How black holes come about? The
>>universe is absolutely marvellous, and you don't need to have 10's of thousands
>>of dollars of equipment to study it, you can just go into your back yard with a
>>set of binocs and LOOK at the sky! When you've got all these absolutely
>>incredible facts and hypotheses as to how the universe really works, why would
>>you even WANT a stupid old story about how some magical man from fantasy land
>>just poofed it all into being? The story isn't even *interesting*.
>
> I know.

Then why do you believe it?

[Devils Advocaat]

On 19 Nov, 15:08, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

Nor is poor little duke, but he comes in cans :P

[Caranx latus]

On 11/18/2012 6:19 PM, duke wrote:

<snip>

> Yep, creation is the Donny viable answer.

The "Donny viable answer"? Are you using a random word generator to
write your posts, ducky?

[duke]

Haahaahaa. No, I pushed the "go" button on the spell checker without paying
better attention. I saw it just as the button hit the bottom. Accept my word
that "only" is the word.

[harry k]

On Nov 20, 5:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

Your word is worthless, liar

Harry K

[Ralph]

Answers such as this one only validate that you are a real asshole.

Say Andrew, have you ever heard of XNA?

[Ralph]

As soon as someone can present verifiable physical evidence of the
supernatural, I'm certain that it
will be investigated. Until then, it won't. Just that simple. In fact,
even a simpleton like you should
be able to understand it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:23:06 -0500, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 11/19/2012 4:34 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "sbalneav" <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in message news:k89s4s$mu7$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
>>> Please provide an example of a discovery which, in
>>> your mind, would disprove creation.
>> All discoveries serve to support the truth of Creation.

Lie noted.

>Answers such as this one only validate that you are a real asshole.

He's seriously mentally ill.

Nobody would give a toss about his deluded fantasies if he kept them
to himself.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 20 Nov, 18:23, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 4:34 AM, Andrew wrote:
>

> > "sbalneav" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote in messagenews:k89s4s$mu7$2...@dont-email.me...

> >> In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Which marvelously confirms the truth of Creation.
> >> Please provide an example of a discovery which, in
> >> your mind, would disprove creation.
> > All discoveries serve to support the truth of Creation.
>
> Answers such as this one only validate that you are a real asshole.
>
> Say Andrew, have you ever heard of XNA?

If you have XNA, I have an ointment that'll help clear it up in no
time.

[Caranx latus]

On 11/20/2012 8:26 AM, duke wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:03:57 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2012 6:19 PM, duke wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Yep, creation is the Donny viable answer.
>>
>> The "Donny viable answer"? Are you using a random word generator to
>> write your posts, ducky?
>
> Haahaahaa. No, I pushed the "go" button on the spell checker without paying
> better attention. I saw it just as the button hit the bottom. Accept my word
> that "only" is the word.

How bad a speller are you that you rely on a spell checker to spell
'only' for you?

[duke]

My word is GOLDEN.

[duke]

My fingers are so fast your brain can't keep up.