Re: The Big Bang Theory
Dan Listermann
"isabelace" <chocol...@live.com> wrote in message
news:f248c305-1bfb-4dd0...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it
> is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie. GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
THE GREAT GREEN ARKELSEIZURE SNEEZED THE UNIVERSE FROM ITS NOSE. PLEASE
READ "THE HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY." WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
.
Dana Tweedy
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
and how do you know this?
> I know it
> is hard to believe but it's the truth.
And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
> I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie.
On what do you base this claim?
> GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
Why can't God have used natural processes?
DJT
Ernest Major
<f248c305-1bfb-4dd0...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
isabelace <chocol...@live.com> writes
>I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
>believe a lie. GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
weight on what you are supposed to believe is the work of God (the
universe) than on the words of men (the Bible, and especially particular
interpretations of the Bible).
http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML
--
alias Ernest Major
Eric Root
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it
> is hard to believe but it's the truth.
Have you tested your notion against reality?
> I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie.
Sorry, a lie is an intentional attempt to deceive. Do you have any
evidence to back your accusation?
> GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS).
The book of Genesis has no evidence of what God did or didn't say. It
is what early man _thought_ God did and said. Any notion that it has
special, magic authority to countermand science needs a powerful
argument on your part.
What basis is there (even for Christians,) other than wishful
thinking, for rating its truth claims any higher than those of other
pre-scientific legends?
> WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
So is doing the way He really did it, using evolution, which is what
the real-world evidence points to.
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
Matter exploding into existance all by itself is a /natural process/?
Matter from nothing sounds kinda supernatural if you ask me.
Big Bang. Another exotic fantasy for those that refuse to believe God
Created.
All-seeing-I
> In message
> <f248c305-1bfb-4dd0-a6bc-d1c0588b7...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> writes>I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
The bible IS the work of God. Keep up
Boikat
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it
> is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie. GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
The Universe was farted out of the ass of Crom after a celebration
where he drank too much beer and ate too many hotdogs. The abundance
of methane in the Universe supports my claim. What have you got? A
book. How quaint.
Boikat
Boikat
Says who?
Boikat
Will in New Haven
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it
> is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie. GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
So he used a power word? How did he get to be a high enough level to
use a power word with no dungeons and no monsters. Who was his, I
guess I should say His, Game Master?
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 28, 1:59�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I do believe GOD could have used any theory, process or method out
> there to form this universe, i mean he is God, but he is telling me in
> black and white the way he formed it: with his WORDS. I believe this
> by faith because his word (the Bible) tells me so. I also believe that
> God has given humans intelligence but ours is LIMITED (those who
> believe otherwise might border on arrogance). Many argue that the
> Bible was not written by God but by man. They are right. It was
> written by man but THESE MEN WERE INSPIRED BY GOD (2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17).
> I urge you to read the Bible. You will find answers there when we
> really, whole heartedly seek to find God (Jeremiah 33:3). God will
> reveal himself through his word (the Bible). GOD IS NOT A MYTH OR A
> FAIRYTALE STORY. HE IS REAL. AND FOR ANYONE WHO DENIES SUCH EXISTENCE,
> I LEAVE YOU THIS: IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO GOD, THEN YOU ALL BETTER BE
> RIGHT!
And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is
the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it
is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says
so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know
it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it
because it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god
because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of
god. And you know it is the word of god because it says so. And you
can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is the
word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the
word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says so.
And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is
the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it is
the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says
so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know
it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because
it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it
says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you
know it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it
because it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god
because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of
god. And you know it is the word of god because it says so. And you
can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is the
word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it is
the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says
so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know
it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it
because it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god
because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of
god. And you know it is the word of god because it says so. And you
can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is the
word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the
word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says so.
And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is
the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it is
the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says
so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know
it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because
it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it
says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you
know it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it
because it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god
because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of
god. And you know it is the word of god because it says so. And you
can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know it is the
word of god because it says so. And you can trust it because it is
the word of god. And you know it is the word of god because it says
so. And you can trust it because it is the word of god. And you know
it is the word of god because it says so. And you can trust it
because it is the word of god. And you know it is the word of god
because it says so.
Will in New Haven
Because it says so. And you can trust it because it is the word of
mur...@tntech.edu
No it isn't. God told me it isn't.
---DPM
TomS
<a771e9a0-60e1-4c10...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
mur...@tntech.edu stated..."
And, interestingly, the Bible says that it isn't.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Rolf
>
> I do believe GOD could have used any theory, process or method out
> there to form this universe, i mean he is God, but he is telling me in
> black and white the way he formed it: with his WORDS. I believe this
> by faith because his word (the Bible) tells me so. I also believe that
> God has given humans intelligence but ours is LIMITED (those who
> believe otherwise might border on arrogance). Many argue that the
> Bible was not written by God but by man. They are right. It was
> written by man but THESE MEN WERE INSPIRED BY GOD (2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17).
> I urge you to read the Bible. You will find answers there when we
> really, whole heartedly seek to find God (Jeremiah 33:3). God will
> reveal himself through his word (the Bible). GOD IS NOT A MYTH OR A
> FAIRYTALE STORY. HE IS REAL. AND FOR ANYONE WHO DENIES SUCH EXISTENCE,
> I LEAVE YOU THIS: IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO GOD,
Which of them?
Ernest Major
<548c5f6a-7d1f-479d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes
Men. But even if we were to concede for the sake of argument that the
Bible was the work of God, people who interpret Genesis as a historical
account (rather than, say, an allegory) are still placing more weight on
the words of men (on how the Bible is to be interpreted) than on what
they are supposed to believe is the work of God. (M/adman might be a
Manichean or Gnostic, which lets him off the second part.)
>
>Boikat
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<82018388-a041-4fac...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
isabelace <chocol...@live.com> writes
>On Dec 28, 3:35�pm, Will in New Haven
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Exactly!
>
That's a rather low-key post. If you're not parodying creationists
you've missed the point, which is that using the Bible to justify a
claim that it is the work of God is a circular argument, which is
logically fallacious.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:6d6ffe37-f7b4-47a2...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
.
Dakota
The Big Bang theory does not propose that matter came from nothing but,
rather, a singularity.
Quantum theory allows for matter to appear from a vacuum but only briefly.
Both theories describe natural processes.
Please submit you theory that it "sounds kinda supernatural" to a
peer-reviewed scientific journal and see how far you get.
Dan Listermann
Who never has been able to show any evidence of existing outside the
imaginations of his believers.
.
Mark Isaak
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to this
> theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I SAID
> COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it is hard
> to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to believe a lie.
> GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE BOOK OF GENESIS).
> WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
First, you might want to read Genesis either in its original language or
in a good translation with footnotes. It does *not* say God created the
world with his word; it says the world already exited, and God shaped it.
Second, you might want to examine your own morals, and wonder at the
amount of hubris invovled in someone with no education at all telling
people who have devoted lifetimes studying the issue that they are
certainly wrong.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Ernest Major
<ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:04:31 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 1:59�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>> isabelace wrote:
>>>> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>>>> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>>>> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>>>> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>>
>>> and how do you know this? �
>>>
>>>> I know it
>>>> is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>>
>>> And how do you arrive at this conclusion? �
>>>
>>>> I guess you all choose to
>>>> believe a lie.
>>>
>>> On what do you base this claim?
>>>
>>>> GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>>>> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>>
>>> Why can't God have used natural processes?
>>>
>>> DJT
>>
>> Matter exploding into existance all by itself is a /natural process/?
>>
>> Matter from nothing sounds kinda supernatural if you ask me.
>>
>> Big Bang. Another exotic fantasy for those that refuse to believe God
>> Created.
>
>The Big Bang theory does not propose that matter came from nothing but,
>rather, a singularity.
One could restate that Big Bang theory as that the universe has expanded
and is continuing to expand from a much smaller, much hotter, much
denser state. The Big Bang theory is an explanation of the observed
features of the universe as consequences of that expansion. Now, it
happens to be the case that if one neglects quantum effects then the
mathematics used to embody the theory lead back to a singularity - but
as we both know of the existence of quantum effects, and that they can't
be neglected in the modelling of sufficiently early states of the
universe, it is a debatable point as to whether the singularity is part
of current theory.
>
>Quantum theory allows for matter to appear from a vacuum but only briefly.
>
>Both theories describe natural processes.
>
>Please submit you theory that it "sounds kinda supernatural" to a
>peer-reviewed scientific journal and see how far you get.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
VoiceOfReason
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie. GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
No, that's ignorance, based on a kindergarten version of Genesis.
VoiceOfReason
The Big Bang was theorized by a Christian, you bugwit.
Caranx latus
> On Dec 28, 4:11 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
<snip>
> You believe what you believe for a reason. I respect that; however,
> One can deny HIS existence but it doesn't make it true.
Similarly, one can assert its existence but *that* doesn't make it true
either.
<snip>
Jerry Freedman
Apparently you have not heard of Mother F'nah Who Secretes the Dawn
Jim
> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it
> is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> believe a lie.
Well, Isabel, here is a problem. See, whoever made the universe went
to a lot of trouble to make it look exactly like it was created 13.7
billion years ago. Everything we can measure and detect tells us
that. Basically, the universe itself is telling us that it was
created via the big bang. Given that, either a literal interpretation
of Genesis is mistaken or the universe itself is lying to us. Why
would God create a lie? Think about that a bit - if the universe was
not created via the big bang then whoever DID create the universe is
lying to us. So either you need to think more about what Genesis
really means, or you need to accept that God is a liar. Of course, if
God lies, then how do you know Genesis is literally correct? But if
God does not lie, then Genesis cannot be literally true. That is what
you need to decide for yourself.
dali_70
Which bible?
How may times has it been copied, translated and reinterpreted?
Seems to me that if some magical omnipotent being wrote a bestseller
there would only be one version.
Caranx latus
>> Similarly, one can assert its existence but *that* doesn't make it true
>> either.
>
> You have a point but the truth of the matter is that: HE DOES EXIST.
Davej
> GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
Yeah, and heaven used to be very close to the ground back then. You
could just send up a kite with a note to communicate with your dead
relatives.
GROW UP YOU IDIOT.
All-seeing-I
You assert divergence is true. That does not make it true.
TomS
<d66cf109-0108-42fa...@t19g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, dali_70
stated..."
One would think that a reasonably powerful and knowledgeable and
well-wishing being would be able to get his/her/their points across
well enough so that there would be rather good agreement on what
the being meant to say.
Why people remained convinced that the Bible was saying that the
earth was fixed and not a planet, or why nobody came up with the
idea that species were fixed, or why slavery was felt to be
acceptable - there's got to be something lacking in the author's
facility with written language.
Caranx latus
as?ser?tion
�noun
1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason
I have made attempts in the past to show you that "divergence" is a
rational conclusion that can be drawn from the fossil record. (You've
managed to retain *nothing* of what I explained to you.) You, on the
other hand, have *never* provided support for your assertion that the
Sumerians recorded incidents of in vitro fertilization.
And the main difference between the two situations is that in the first,
you *don't* actually want support whereas in the second, I have been
asking you for it and you refuse. You might want to get out of that
glass house before you start throwing stones.
RAM
> Thank you for your comment.
Why are you competing with ASSinine (nyms - All-seeing-I, Uriel,
Adman, (M)adman and probably unstated others) for being the the best
asinine asserter on TO?
He was hands down winner since his first post on TO. Now you (an
upstart) come along and start an ASSinine ASSerter War!!!
He won't deal with scientific evidence either. You clearly are alsio
ignorant of science just like ASSinine and you should avoid learning
any if you want to win this ASSinine War. May the most Godly win!
Greg G.
>
> In my experiences, the Bible has given me more answers than any
> scientific theory (please look up definition of theory)
Look up the definition of theory in a scientific context. It means
explanation, not hypothesis.
> that at the
> end is usually always speculation. Moreover, there has been in history
> many scientific theories that have been accepted as "true & correct"
> only to be proved later incorrect.
But even those things that were incorrect were closer than what one
could ascertain from the Bible. Nothing in the Bible would lead a
person to believe the world was round if they weren't informed by
science beforehand (before you quote Isaiah - circles are flat).
Science thought the Earth was a sphere but later found that it was an
oblate sheroid. The sphere claim was closer than anything the Bible
could suggest. Look how long Bible-believers suppressed the
heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Darwin thought the earth was very old but the physicists said it
couldn't be more than 25 million years old or there would be no
volcanoes. Then science discovered radioactivity and Darwin was proved
correct.
Science is very conservative until a mechanism is found.
Eric Root
Of course his asserting it doesn't make it true. It does constitute
his informing you that it is true.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Dec 28, 1:59�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> > > SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>
>
> > > is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>
>
> > > believe a lie.
>
>
> > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
>
> > DJT
>
>
> I do believe GOD could have used any theory, process or method out
> there to form this universe, i mean he is God, but he is telling me in
> black and white the way he formed it: with his WORDS. I believe this
> by faith because his word (the Bible) tells me so. I also believe that
> God has given humans intelligence but ours is LIMITED (those who
> believe otherwise might border on arrogance). Many argue that the
> Bible was not written by God but by man. They are right. It was
> written by man but THESE MEN WERE INSPIRED BY GOD (2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17).
Inspired does not mean dictated word for word like a secretary. And
even if it was, it was passed along by word of mouth for many
generations before anyone wrote it down. I'm sure you've played the
game of "telephone" and know what happens when a message gets passed
along multiple times.
> I urge you to read the Bible. You will find answers there when we
> really, whole heartedly seek to find God (Jeremiah 33:3). God will
> reveal himself through his word (the Bible). GOD IS NOT A MYTH OR A
> FAIRYTALE STORY. HE IS REAL. AND FOR ANYONE WHO DENIES SUCH EXISTENCE,
Fine. That has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of evolution.
Your imagination that it does does not shine a flattering light on
your ability to think things through.
> I LEAVE YOU THIS: IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO GOD, THEN YOU ALL BETTER BE
> RIGHT!
I'm Christian and I have no problem with evolution. However, I also
think that inerrant documents are an impossibility in the real world,
so any formulation of Christianity that involves pretending that the
Bible trumps science is right out the wndow as too unaesthetically
kludgy.
Even so, the whole "if you think there is no god, you better be right"
thing is total bull. You could say that about Thor or anything else.
I could just as well ask you "what will you tell Jesus when he asks
you why you didn't accept evolution?"
Eric Root
Dan Listermann
"isabelace" <chocol...@live.com> wrote in message
news:5c62db95-c299-4079...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6d6ffe37-f7b4-47a2...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> isabelace wrote:
>> >> > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>> >> > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>> >> > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>> >> > SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>> >> and how do you know this?
>>
>> >> > I know it
>> >> > is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>> >> And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>> >> > I guess you all choose to
>> >> > believe a lie.
>>
>> >> On what do you base this claim?
>>
>> >> > GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>> >> > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>> >> Why can't God have used natural processes?
>>
>> >> DJT
>>
>>
>> > Matter from nothing sounds kinda supernatural if you ask me.
>>
>> > Big Bang. Another exotic fantasy for those that refuse to believe God
>> > Created.
>>
>>
>> .- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> You believe what you believe for a reason. I respect that; however,
> One MUST believe that by faith. Seek and you will find (Jeremiah 33:3)
> but you must seek with ALL YOUR HEART. He will prove himself to you!!!!
>
Who ever questioned the existence of the Great Green Arkelseizure?
Something had to sneeze, right?
.
Dan Listermann
alternative called "goddidit."
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 28, 4:14 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:04:31 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Dec 28, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> isabelace wrote:
>> >>> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>> >>> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>> >>> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>> >>> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>> >> and how do you know this?
>>
>> >>> I know it
>> >>> is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>> >> And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>> >>> I guess you all choose to
>> >>> believe a lie.
>>
>> >> On what do you base this claim?
>>
>> >>> GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>> >>> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>> >> Why can't God have used natural processes?
>>
>> >> DJT
>>
>> > Matter exploding into existance all by itself is a /natural process/?
>>
>> > Matter from nothing sounds kinda supernatural if you ask me.
>>
>> > Big Bang. Another exotic fantasy for those that refuse to believe God
>> > Created.
>>
>> rather, a singularity.
>>
>> Quantum theory allows for matter to appear from a vacuum but only
>> briefly.
>>
>> Both theories describe natural processes.
>>
>> Please submit you theory that it "sounds kinda supernatural" to a
>> peer-reviewed scientific journal and see how far you get.- Hide quoted
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He remains GOD. Creator of All.
>
So you assert without evidence. How much money will it take, with that, to
buy a cup of coffee?
.
Stuart
> SPECULATION.
>
> MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
> MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT �BELIEVE ME. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
> CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
> READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
> EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
No, those are not synonyms for scientific theory.
Stop typing in all caps, it makes you look like a desperate crank.
Now, you may well be a desperate crank.. but still you needn't act
like one.
Stuart
Dan Listermann
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8EW7asZF...@meden.invalid...
> One could restate that Big Bang theory as that the universe has expanded
> and is continuing to expand from a much smaller, much hotter, much denser
> state.
Like just before a really big sneeze, right?
.
Caranx latus
> SPECULATION.
In the scientific context, the following definition is the one that
applies. The words that you provided are *not* applicable to the
scientific use of the word.
From <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory>:
the?o?ry
�noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms:
1. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established
explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of
relativity.
> MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
> MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE ME. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
> CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
> READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
> EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
It's conventional to avoid the use of all-caps. It generally connotes
shouting.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 28, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> isabelace wrote:
>>> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>>> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>>> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>>> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>> and how do you know this?
>>
>>> I know it
>>> is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>> And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>>> I guess you all choose to
>>> believe a lie.
>>
>> On what do you base this claim?
>>
>>> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
> Matter exploding into existance all by itself is a /natural process/?
Yes, it is.
>
> Matter from nothing sounds kinda supernatural if you ask me.
I don't recall asking you.
>
> Big Bang. Another exotic fantasy for those that refuse to believe God
> Created.
The Big Bang is among the ways God created.
DJT
Dan Listermann
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9d107393-3c63-4dfe...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 4:04 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > isabelace wrote:
>> > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>> > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>> > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>> > > SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>> > and how do you know this?
>>
>> > > I know it
>> > > is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>> > And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>> > > I guess you all choose to
>> > > believe a lie.
>>
>> > On what do you base this claim?
>>
>> > > GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>> > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>> > Why can't God have used natural processes?
>>
>> > DJT
>>
>> Matter exploding into existance all by itself is a /natural process/?
>>
>>
>> Created.
>
>
A Catholic priest no less.
.
Dana Tweedy
What makes divergence true is all the evidence that shows it happens.
DJT
Dan Listermann
> times. The message remains the same (those have read it know what I am
> talking about). Must be the number one seller for a reason. Many have
> tried to discredit the bible but have been unsuccessful. Many have
> tried to deny its authority yet at the end acknowledge it.
>
What is there to "discredit" considering it is the product of the campfire
mumblings of bronze age goatherds? Do you feel a need to "discredit" Homer?
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 28, 4:44 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 4:04 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > isabelace wrote:
>> > > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>> > > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>> > > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE:
>> > > > I
>> > > > SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>> > > and how do you know this?
>>
>> > > > I know it
>> > > > is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>> > > And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>> > > > I guess you all choose to
>> > > > believe a lie.
>>
>> > > On what do you base this claim?
>>
>> > > > GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>> > > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>> > > Why can't God have used natural processes?
>>
>> > > DJT
>>
>> > Matter exploding into existance all by itself is a /natural process/?
>>
>> > Matter from nothing sounds kinda supernatural if you ask me.
>>
>> > Big Bang. Another exotic fantasy for those that refuse to believe God
>> > Created.
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
True Scotsman fallacy.
.
Dan Listermann
> Faith is something you believe without seeing.
Exactly! Just the same as when you believe, without seeing, a superstition.
Coincidence? I think not.
.
Boikat
wrote:
> On Dec 28, 4:19�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 1:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> > > is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> > > believe a lie. GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
> > where he drank too much beer and ate too many hotdogs. �The abundance
> > of methane in the Universe supports my claim. �What have you got? �A
> > book. �How quaint.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Apparently you have not heard of Mother F'nah Who Secretes the Dawn-
Sounds like Crom's kind of woman-diety. Does she drink beer? Maybe
her and Crom should get together.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> that my beliefs are based on faith and maybe I can't answer every
> question you might have factually hence the word FAITH, but you come
> at me with scientifice theories (theories, not facts) and speculations
> and talk about winning a war? Many scientific theories have been
> proven incorrect when once believed to be true.
>
Many solidly held faiths are now laughing stocks. I will take scientific
theories based on solid facts over the imaginations of goatherds any day.
.
Dana Tweedy
>>> I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>>> theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>>> this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>>> SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>>
>>> is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>>
>>> believe a lie.
>>
>>
>>> BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>>
>> DJT
>
That would be Mr.
>
> I do believe GOD could have used any theory, process or method out
> there to form this universe, i mean he is God, but he is telling me in
> black and white the way he formed it: with his WORDS.
Why can't "his words" be natural processes?
> I believe this
> by faith because his word (the Bible) tells me so.
Ok, not a problem. Just don't assume that's the same as science.
> I also believe that
> God has given humans intelligence but ours is LIMITED (those who
> believe otherwise might border on arrogance).
Some obvioiusly more limited than others.
> Many argue that the
> Bible was not written by God but by man. They are right. It was
> written by man but THESE MEN WERE INSPIRED BY GOD (2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17).
At least that's what the Bible says. However saying something is inspired
by God because it says it is, is a circular argument.
> I urge you to read the Bible.
I have read the Bible. I continue to read the Bible.
> You will find answers there when we
> really, whole heartedly seek to find God (Jeremiah 33:3). God will
> reveal himself through his word (the Bible).
Which doesn't really answer the question, why can't God have used natural
processes to create.
> GOD IS NOT A MYTH OR A
> FAIRYTALE STORY. HE IS REAL.
I believe that too. However I don't see why he can't have used natural
processes to create.
> AND FOR ANYONE WHO DENIES SUCH EXISTENCE,
> I LEAVE YOU THIS: IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO GOD, THEN YOU ALL BETTER BE
> RIGHT!
On the other hand, if you deny the existence of Allah, or Zeus, or Odin, you
had better be right as well. Do you really think this is an effective
argument?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 28, 5:42 pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 4:25 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the Bible tells me so.
>>
>> Which bible?
>>
>> How may times has it been copied, translated and reinterpreted?
>>
>> Seems to me that if some magical omnipotent being wrote a bestseller
>> there would only be one version.
>
> You are correct. The bible has been through those phases plenty of
> times. The message remains the same (those have read it know what I am
> talking about).
The problem is that different people see different messages.
> Must be the number one seller for a reason.
Other than the "read this or we'll kill you" reason?
> Many have
> tried to discredit the bible but have been unsuccessful. Many have
> tried to deny its authority yet at the end acknowledge it.
Again, the same can be said about a lot of religious writings. The fact
remains that the Bible is to be taken on faith, not evidence.
DJT
TomS
<c4543d79-b224-410d...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, isabelace
stated..."
>
>On Dec 28, 5:42�pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 4:25�pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> >the Bible tells me so.
>>
>> Which bible?
>>
>> How may times has it been copied, translated and reinterpreted?
>>
>> Seems to me that if some magical omnipotent being wrote a bestseller
>> there would only be one version.
>
>You are correct. The bible has been through those phases plenty of
>times. The message remains the same (those have read it know what I am
>tried to discredit the bible but have been unsuccessful. Many have
>tried to deny its authority yet at the end acknowledge it.
>
And it just happens to be that, among all of the various
interpretations that have been given to the Bible in all of its
redactions, the little group that our correspondent happens to
belong to turns out finally to be the definitive interpretation.
We should all feel lucky to happen to have lived in an era when we
can hear our correspondent's definitive interpretation.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 28, 5:15 pm, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>> > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>> > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
>> > is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
>> > believe a lie.
>>
>> Well, Isabel, here is a problem. See, whoever made the universe went
>> to a lot of trouble to make it look exactly like it was created 13.7
>> billion years ago. Everything we can measure and detect tells us
>> that. Basically, the universe itself is telling us that it was
>> created via the big bang. Given that, either a literal interpretation
>> of Genesis is mistaken or the universe itself is lying to us. Why
>> would God create a lie? Think about that a bit - if the universe was
>> not created via the big bang then whoever DID create the universe is
>> lying to us. So either you need to think more about what Genesis
>> really means, or you need to accept that God is a liar. Of course, if
>> God lies, then how do you know Genesis is literally correct? But if
>> God does not lie, then Genesis cannot be literally true. That is what
>> you need to decide for yourself.
>>
>>
>
>> >GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> saying that God could have used any process to create the universe but
> the force behind those processes is, regardless,GOD. With the big
> bang theory, people have chosen to exclude GOD as the CREATOR but who
> is to say (and there is no scientific proof to prove otherwise) that
> GOD didn't create the big bang-if you so wish to believe that it
> happened in one "explosion". My simple point is that GOD is still the
> CREATOR, via natural processes or otherwise.
>
The truth of the matter is we don't know how the "Great Sneeze" developed
and we may well never know. It will probably always be unknown. Now here
is the hard part. We have to guard against deep urges to anthropomorphize
this unknown and worship it because that is downright silly.
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 28, 5:44 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 1:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
>>
>> Yeah, and heaven used to be very close to the ground back then. You
>> could just send up a kite with a note to communicate with your dead
>> relatives.
>>
>>
>
> IF they went to heaven.
>
> In my experiences, the Bible has given me more answers than any
> end is usually always speculation.
"Answers" are cheap. If you need mere "answers," ask a goatherd. They
seem to impress you.
Moreover, there has been in history
> many scientific theories that have been accepted as "true & correct"
> only to be proved later incorrect.
Usually not so much "incorrect" as refined. Now if you want certainty,
without question, ask a goatherd.
>
.
Dana Tweedy
> SPECULATION.
Not how it's used in a scientific context, however. Also, using all caps
is poor netiquitte. It suggests you are shouting.
>
> MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
That doesn't matter as far as science is concerned.
> BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
> MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE ME.
Then why make such claims?
> IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
> CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
> READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
> EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
This is an open forum. People can "come in" wherever they wish.
DJT
Davej
> On Dec 28, 5:44 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 1:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
> > Yeah, and heaven used to be very close to the ground back then. You
> > could just send up a kite with a note to communicate with your dead
> > relatives.
>
> IF they went to heaven.
>
> In my experiences, the Bible has given me more answers than any
Which just goes to show that you don't know anything about science and
probably ought to be living in a mud hut. Science is the only reason
you aren't living in a mud hut. The various religions have been trying
to provide emotionally satisfying answers ever since the dawn of time
just to satisfy people like you, and all they do is make stuff up.
Dan Listermann
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> and hypothesis that were once believed to be true have been proven
> incorrect. Yet God is one entity which nobody can unprove. Centuries
> upon centuries of people would and do disagree with this theory.
>
Can you "unproved" any deity? Try to show that Zeus does not exist. Give
it your best shot.
.
isabelace
>
> Stop typing in all caps, it makes you look like a desperate crank.
Thank you.
>
> Now, you may well be a desperate crank.. but still you needn't act
> like one.
>
> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
isabelace
>
>
>
> > MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
>
> That doesn't matter as far as science is concerned.
regards to the big bang. This could have been the force God used to
create the universe. But all credit is still given to HIM regardless
of the process.
>
> > BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
> > MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT �BELIEVE ME.
>
> Then why make such claims?
the answer to this one.
>
> > IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
> > CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
> > READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
> > EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
>
> This is an open forum. �People can "come in" wherever they wish.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
Dan Listermann
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:8P2dnUJe38bVw6TW...@bresnan.com...
.
Dan Listermann
like superstition. Coincidence?
.
Dan Listermann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 6:53 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 28, 7:16 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 28, 5:44 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Dec 28, 1:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>> > MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE ME. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
>> > CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
>> > READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
>> > EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
>>
>>
>>
>> like one.
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> is wrong. Thank you for your comments.
>
Perhaps we can bother you to Google "scientific theory."
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 28, 7:19 pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 4:25 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 1:59 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > isabelace wrote:
>> > > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
>> > > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
>> > > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE:
>> > > > I
>> > > > SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T.
>>
>> > > and how do you know this?
>>
>> > > > I know it
>> > > > is hard to believe but it's the truth.
>>
>> > > And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
>>
>> > > > I guess you all choose to
>> > > > believe a lie.
>>
>> > > On what do you base this claim?
>>
>> > > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>>
>>
>> > > DJT
>>
>>
>> > there to form this universe, i mean he is God, but he is telling me in
>> > by faith because his word (the Bible) tells me so. I also believe that
>> > God has given humans intelligence but ours is LIMITED (those who
>> > Bible was not written by God but by man. They are right. It was
>> > written by man but THESE MEN WERE INSPIRED BY GOD (2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17).
>>
>> even if it was, it was passed along by word of mouth for many
>> generations before anyone wrote it down. I'm sure you've played the
>> game of "telephone" and know what happens when a message gets passed
>> along multiple times.
>>
>> > I urge you to read the Bible. You will find answers there when we
>> > really, whole heartedly seek to find God (Jeremiah 33:3). God will
>> > FAIRYTALE STORY. HE IS REAL. AND FOR ANYONE WHO DENIES SUCH EXISTENCE,
>>
>> Fine. That has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of evolution.
>> Your imagination that it does does not shine a flattering light on
>> your ability to think things through.
>>
>> > I LEAVE YOU THIS: IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO GOD, THEN YOU ALL BETTER BE
>> > RIGHT!
>>
>> think that inerrant documents are an impossibility in the real world,
>> so any formulation of Christianity that involves pretending that the
>> Bible trumps science is right out the wndow as too unaesthetically
>> kludgy.
>>
>> Even so, the whole "if you think there is no god, you better be right"
>> thing is total bull. You could say that about Thor or anything else.
>> I could just as well ask you "what will you tell Jesus when he asks
>> you why you didn't accept evolution?"
>>
>> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Please read my previous comments (Please read all of them). I have
> already answered your questions. Thank you.
>
Classic theist punt!
.
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 28, 5:15嚙緘m, Jim <jimwille...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 2:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> > > is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> > > believe a lie.
>
> > Well, Isabel, here is a problem. 嚙磅ee, whoever made the universe went
> > to a lot of trouble to make it look exactly like it was created 13.7
> > that. 嚙畿asically, the universe itself is telling us that it was
> > created via the big bang. 嚙瘦iven that, either a literal interpretation
> > of Genesis is mistaken or the universe itself is lying to us. 嚙�Why
> > would God create a lie? 嚙確hink about that a bit - if the universe was
> > not created via the big bang then whoever DID create the universe is
> > really means, or you need to accept that God is a liar. 嚙瞌f course, if
> > God lies, then how do you know Genesis is literally correct? 嚙畿ut if
> > God does not lie, then Genesis cannot be literally true. 嚙確hat is what
> > you need to decide for yourself.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> saying that God could have used any process to create the universe but
> bang theory, people have chosen to exclude GOD as the CREATOR but who
> is to say (and there is no scientific proof to prove otherwise) that
> GOD didn't create the big bang-if you so wish to believe that it
> CREATOR, via natural processes or otherwise.
MIght well be. The claim that you know anything about the creator is
laughable but there may have been a creator.
--
Will in New Haven
Jim
> On Dec 28, 7:32 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > You assert divergence is true. That does not make it true.
>
> > As a working hypothesis, it has shown itself to be far superior to an
> > alternative called "goddidit."
> In your own words: A working hypothesis (not a fact). many theories
> and hypothesis that were once believed to be true have been proven
> incorrect. Yet God is one entity which nobody can unprove. Centuries
> upon centuries of people would and do disagree with this theory.
Isabel, you are misusing the word 'theory' here. A theory is a well-
tested explanation for a set of observed phenomena which has
predictive power - that is, a theory will tell you why one thing
happens and not another, and will tell you what you can expect to find
(and why you can expect to find it - see Carnax's post elsewhere in
this thread). God as a theory is pretty worthless - God doesn't
explain the cosmic microwave background radiation, the twin nested
hierarchies of morphology and genetics, or the Pacific Ring of Fire.
God may have created the processes by which those phenomena occur, but
saying 'God is a successful theory' is exactly equivalent to saying
'Because!' is an adequate explanation for why flowers have scent or
why the sky is blue.
The Creator of the universe is far, far more subtle and far, far more
powerful than the God of Genesis stories - and it is to understand the
Creator by understanding Creation that is the spiritual aspect of
science. The entire humbug of 'science trying to remove God' is
ridiculous - it is only the inane caricature of God that biblical
literalists insist upon that is threatened by a deeper understanding
of what the Creator did and how it was done, and this caricature is
manifestly not a reasonable description of the Divine. Indeed, the
more we learn about the universe the deeper, more powerful, and more
wonderful the Creator becomes. It is one thing to 'poof' the universe
as we know it into being with a Word - it is a whole different ball
game to start with nothing but hydrogen and gravity and let the
universe assemble itself. Of the two, I think the latter is by far
the more impressive feat. There are many here whom I respect greatly
who may disagree with me on this, but the existence of God is not
threatened by science - indeed, cannot be threatened by science. If
one understands that, the whole of existence becomes at once numinous
and full of wonder and beauty, enticing one to explore further, to
grow, to love.
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 28, 6:19�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 5:15 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Dec 28, 2:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> > > > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to
> > > > > this theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I
> > > > > SAID COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it
> > > > > is hard to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to
> > > > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
> > > > No, that's ignorance, based on a kindergarten version of Genesis.
>
> > > One could possibly view it like that but HE STILL REMAINS THE CREATOR.
> > > Thank you for your comment.
>
> > Why are you competing with ASSinine (nyms - All-seeing-I, Uriel,
> > Adman, (M)adman and probably unstated others) for being the the best
> > asinine asserter on TO?
>
> > He was hands down winner since his first post on TO. � Now you (an
> > upstart) come along and start an ASSinine ASSerter War!!!
>
> > He won't deal with scientific evidence either. �You clearly are alsio
> > ignorant of science just like ASSinine and you should avoid learning
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> that my beliefs are based on faith and maybe I can't answer every
> question you might have factually hence the word FAITH, but you come
> at me with scientifice theories (theories, not facts) and speculations
> and talk about winning a war? Many scientific theories have been
> proven incorrect when once believed to be true.
Name a few. To rise to a status of a theory, an idea has to get past
the stage of being a wild-ass guess, get past merely being an
hypothesis and reach a fairly high level of acceptance.
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 28, 5:44 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 1:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > GOD SAID HE CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
> > could just send up a kite with a note to communicate with your dead
> > relatives.
>
> IF they went to heaven.
>
> In my experiences, the Bible has given me more answers than any
> end is usually always speculation. Moreover, there has been in history
> many scientific theories that have been accepted as "true & correct"
> only to be proved later incorrect.
You really, really, should look up "scientific theory." Otherwise, you
will fall into a trap that creationists now generally avoid. There is
no point in repeating stupidity. Originate your own.
Will in New Haven
He's threatening us with a vengeful little hate-filled demon. It is
the god he created in his own image, because he is vengeful, small and
hate-filled. If this very wonderful universe has a creator, _I_ have
faith that the creator won't hold it against those who deny him or her
when the evidence is so flimsy. And, of course, those of us who simply
let the mystery BE will find out by and by.
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 28, 7:32 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > On Dec 28, 4:46 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >> isabelace wrote:
> > >> > On Dec 28, 4:11 pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > >> <snip>
>
> > >> > You believe what you believe for a reason. I respect that; however,
> > >> > One can deny HIS existence but it doesn't make it true.
>
> > >> Similarly, one can assert its existence but *that* doesn't make it true
> > >> either.
>
>
> > > You assert divergence is true. That does not make it true.
>
> > As a working hypothesis, it has shown itself to be far superior to an
> > alternative called "goddidit."
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> and hypothesis that were once believed to be true have been proven
> incorrect. Yet God is one entity which nobody can unprove. Centuries
> upon centuries of people would and do disagree with this theory.
There's no voting. Evolution happened and is happening. Even if you
could somehow persuade the entire human world that it hadn't, it still
has. Evolution can coexist with a creator god but some people have a
concept of a creator god who cannot coexist with evolution. That's not
my problem.
Eric Root
> On Dec 28, 4:27 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:11:59 -0800, isabelace wrote:
> > > I don't doubt that we have highly educated people backing up this
> > > theory but i have just a simple statement to share with regards to this
> > > theory being the beginning of creation. GOD COULD HAVE (NOTE: I SAID
> > > COULD HAVE) CREATED THE WORLD THIS WAY BUT HE DIDN'T. I know it is hard
> > > to believe but it's the truth. I guess you all choose to believe a lie.
> > > WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
> > in a good translation with footnotes. It does *not* say God created the
> > world with his word; it says the world already exited, and God shaped it.
>
> > Second, you might want to examine your own morals, and wonder at the
> > amount of hubris invovled in someone with no education at all telling
> > people who have devoted lifetimes studying the issue that they are
> > certainly wrong.
>
> > --
> > Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
> > "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> > honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> > pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>
> 1. Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created (the act of producing or
> causing to exist) the heavens and the earth.
> 2. I also believe that there are very intelligent men and women out
> there but HUMAN KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED!
Especially the knowledge of creationists, which is particularly
limited, moreso than scientists and moreso than normal Chrsitians.
> 3. I applaud all men and women who have endured long hours and years
> of studying. Thank you, but GOD STILL REMAINS THE CREATOR OF
> EVERYTHING.
And it also remains that He did it using science such as evolution,
and the Bible is not magical.
Eric Root
Dana Tweedy
>>> SYNONYM OF THEORY: ASSUMPTION, GUESS, HYPOTHESIS, PRESUMPTION,
>>> SPECULATION.
>>
>> Not how it's used in a scientific context, however. Also, using all
>> caps is poor netiquitte. It suggests you are shouting.
> ***************Thank you for pointing that out. Won't happen again.
>>
>>
>>
>>> MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
>>
>> That doesn't matter as far as science is concerned.
> **********************In your own words. God has been excluded with
> regards to the big bang.
No, just not included. Science doesn't deal with supernatural beings.
>This could have been the force God used to
> create the universe. But all credit is still given to HIM regardless
> of the process.
Sure, if you are so inclined.
>>
>>> BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
>>> MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE ME.
>>
>> Then why make such claims?
> **********You sound like a very intelligent person. I think you know
> the answer to this one.
If I know the answer, why would I ask?
>>
>>> IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
>>> CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
>>> READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
>>> EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
>>
>> This is an open forum. People can "come in" wherever they wish.
> ***********Granted. One point for you.
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
DJT
Dana Tweedy
So, God created by natural processes. I can accept that. It's a religious
belief, but no more irrational than any other.
>>
>>> I believe this
>>> by faith because his word (the Bible) tells me so.
>>
>> Ok, not a problem. Just don't assume that's the same as science.
>>
>>> I also believe that
>>
>>> God has given humans intelligence but ours is LIMITED (those who
>>> believe otherwise might border on arrogance).
>>
>> Some obvioiusly more limited than others.
> ***************I agree with you in this point (even though it might be
> an indirect comment). I prefer to speak directly.
>>
>>> Many argue that the
>>> Bible was not written by God but by man. They are right. It was
>>> written by man but THESE MEN WERE INSPIRED BY GOD (2 TIMOTHY
>>> 3:16-17).
>>
>> At least that's what the Bible says. However saying something is
>> inspired by God because it says it is, is a circular argument.
>
> ***********************It is by Faith.
and if you wish to believe that the Bible is God's word, that's a matter of
faith. The problem is that faith is a personal thing, not something you can
show to others.
>>> I urge you to read the Bible.
>>
>> I have read the Bible. I continue to read the Bible.
>>
>>> You will find answers there when we
>>> really, whole heartedly seek to find God (Jeremiah 33:3). God will
>>> reveal himself through his word (the Bible).
>>
>> Which doesn't really answer the question, why can't God have used
>> natural processes to create.
> ******************I believe you skipped one of my previous replies to
> this.
Maybe, but God can certianly do what he wants.
>>
>>> GOD IS NOT A MYTH OR A
>>> FAIRYTALE STORY. HE IS REAL.
>>
>> I believe that too. However I don't see why he can't have used
>> natural processes to create.
> ******************I believe you skipped one of my replies to you with
> regards to this.
>>
>>> AND FOR ANYONE WHO DENIES SUCH EXISTENCE,
>>> I LEAVE YOU THIS: IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO GOD, THEN YOU ALL BETTER
>>> BE RIGHT!
>>
>> On the other hand, if you deny the existence of Allah, or Zeus, or
>> Odin, you had better be right as well. Do you really think this is
>> an effective argument?
> ******************************I agree. But John 14:6 tells me that the
> only way to heaven is through Jesus. Not by works or deeds(Ephisians
> 2:8-10). That we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). That there is none
> good (Romans 3:10).
The point is that arguing that way is pointless. You could be wrong as
well. I believe in God and Jesus too, but I realize that my belief might
be wrong too. All one can do is believe and live a good life.
DJT
isabelace
> isabelace wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 8:01 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> xnip
>
> >>> SYNONYM OF THEORY: ASSUMPTION, GUESS, HYPOTHESIS, PRESUMPTION,
> >>> SPECULATION.
>
> >> Not how it's used in a scientific context, however. Also, using all
> >> caps is poor netiquitte. It suggests you are shouting.
> > ***************Thank you for pointing that out. Won't happen again.
>
> >>> MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
>
> >> That doesn't matter as far as science is concerned.
> > **********************In your own words. God has been excluded with
> > regards to the big bang.
>
--------------------Precisely. Case Closed.
>
> >This could have been the force God used to
> > create the universe. But all credit is still given to HIM regardless
> > of the process.
>
> Sure, if you are so inclined. �
>
>
>
> >>> BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
> >>> MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE ME.
>
> >> Then why make such claims?
> > **********You sound like a very intelligent person. I think you know
> > the answer to this one.
>
-------------------You say you read the bible then how could you not
believe. Please do not generalize this statement. Remember we are
talking about the big bang theory. All other topics will be discussed
on a case by case basis.
Dan Listermann
> isabelace wrote:
>> good (Romans 3:10).
>
> The point is that arguing that way is pointless. You could be wrong as
> well. I believe in God and Jesus too, but I realize that my belief might
> be wrong too. All one can do is believe and live a good life.
>
.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> In my experiences, the Bible has given me more answers than any
> scientific theory (please look up definition of theory) that at the
> end is usually always speculation. Moreover, there has been in history
> many scientific theories that have been accepted as "true & correct"
> only to be proved later incorrect.
Methinks arsemoron developed yet another personality.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> gawd SAID it CREATED IT WITH HIS WORDS (PLEASE READ THE
> BOOK OF GENESIS).
We tend to actually have read it, and much more of da wholly babble, in
sharp contrast to morontheists like you. Funny how no one of you
morontheists ever shouts from the rooftops stuff like "da wholly babble says
the earth is flat! So there! Ha haaaa!", to name just one example.
Da wholly babble could ONLY be trusted (considering all the bullshit in it)
if it could be proven to be the word of gawd. And if that was proven, this
gawd would be something very different from what you morontheists want to
claim... namely a moronic petty sadist.
> WOW!! NOW THAT IS bullshit!!!
Mistake in OP corrected for everyone's convenience.
Greg G.
> On Dec 28, 6:53 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 7:16 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 5:44 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 28, 1:11 pm, isabelace <chocolatec...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > BOOK OF GENESIS). WOW!! NOW THAT IS POWER!!!
>
> > > > could just send up a kite with a note to communicate with your dead
> > > > relatives.
>
> > > IF they went to heaven.
>
> > > scientific theory (please look up definition of theory)
>
> > explanation, not hypothesis.
>
> > > end is usually always speculation. Moreover, there has been in history
> > > many scientific theories that have been accepted as "true & correct"
> > > only to be proved later incorrect.
>
> > could ascertain from the Bible. Nothing in the Bible would lead a
> > person to believe the world was round if they weren't informed by
> > science beforehand (before you quote Isaiah - circles are flat).
> > Science thought the Earth was a sphere but later found that it was an
> > oblate sheroid. The sphere claim was closer than anything the Bible
> > could suggest. Look how long Bible-believers suppressed the
> > heliocentric theory of the solar system.
>
> > Darwin thought the earth was very old but the physicists said it
> > couldn't be more than 25 million years old or there would be no
> > volcanoes. Then science discovered radioactivity and Darwin was proved
> > correct.
>
> > Science is very conservative until a mechanism is found.
>
> SPECULATION.
10 seconds on Google later:
Definitions of scientific theory on the Web:
�a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories
must be falsifiable"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
�An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A
lot of hypotheses are based on theories. ...
www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html
�( in scientific theory ) ...of broad scope, conceived by the human
imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential)
laws ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528929/scientific-method
�a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural
phenomena.
farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/
�To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds
true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural
world. ...
www.sciencelearn.org.nz/help/glossary/(namefilter)/s
�A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to
construct a formal and mathematically structured system. It studies
the character of natural reality. Scientific Management (6). System of
management popular in the first decades of the 20th c. ...
www.udmercy.edu/faculty_pages/staudenmaier_sj/ethics/glossary.html
�an explanation of concept/idea that is supported by evidence and/or
many experiments/trials and is widely accepted by the scientific
community.
peninsula.swiftclassroom.com/kms/molson/documents/
scientific_process_vocab.doc
�A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.
lams.slcusd.org/pages/teachers/science7/Earth'sHistory/Evolution/CH.
%207%20Vocabulary.doc
>
> MY QUESTION TO YOU: DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD? BECUSE IF YOU DO NOT, NO
> MATTER WHAT I SAY YOU WILL NOT �BELIEVE ME. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU
> CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION WAY INTO THE GAME. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO
> READ MY RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS COMMENTARIES. IF YOU NEED FURTHER
> EXPLANTION YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME. THANK YOU.
I've read enough responses to see that you are ill-informed enough to
accept creationist arguments. That can be corrected.
Dan Listermann
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:bf05ba40-1ab9-4f86...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> The only thing you can provide is "scientific THEORIES". I can concede
>> that my beliefs are based on faith and maybe I can't answer every
>> question you might have factually hence the word FAITH, but you come
>> at me with scientifice theories (theories, not facts) and speculations
>> and talk about winning a war? Many scientific theories have been
>> proven incorrect when once believed to be true.
>
> Name a few. To rise to a status of a theory, an idea has to get past
> the stage of being a wild-ass guess, get past merely being an
> hypothesis and reach a fairly high level of acceptance.
>
Now wild-ass guesses are total nonsense. Wild-goat guesses are another
matter entirely.
.