Proof of creationism

[Eugene Willow]

An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism

[Boikat]

On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism

You really didn't read the article, did you?

Boikat

[Eugene Willow]

Let me sum up the essence of the proof:
1. We know world exists.
2. Therefore, world exists, for if it had not existed, it would not
had been created.

Let me also prove the creator wasn't supernatural. We will use the
method called "proof by contradiction".
1. Assume a supernatural god exists.
2. Therefore, it must have created the universe, since we have already
proven it was created.
3. But, if a supernatural god exists, it falls outside the realm of
science.
4. Then, from (2) it follows that the universe is also supernatural.
5. If the universe is supernatural, then it can not be measuired with
scientific method. We have a contradiction.

So, there goes your logic. This is the essence of cdesign
proponentsism.

[Slow Vehicle]

...angels' wings did not evolve, because they do not exist.
You're welcome.

[Slow Vehicle]

Did you _read_ the article?
I mean, the one that says, "Beliefs are just beliefs"?

[Kermit]

I think Eugene is on the side of darkness, i.e. reason and empiricism.

For my primary evidence, I submit his use of the term "cdesign
proponentsism", which I believe no Creationist could willingly post or
utter.


But that's just my belief...

Kermit

[Boikat]

On Sep 25, 2:05 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 18:45, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> > You really didn't read the article, did you?
>
> > Boikat
>
> Let me sum up the essence of the proof:
> 1. We know world exists.
> 2. Therefore, world exists, for if it had not existed, it would not
> had been created.
>
> Let me also prove the creator wasn't supernatural. We will use the
> method called "proof by contradiction".
> 1. Assume a supernatural god exists.

Bzzzzzt!

<snip>

Thanks for playing.

Boikat

[Paul J Gans]

Eugene Willow <willo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
>http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism

I think that's either tongue-in-cheek or you seriously misunderstand
that web page.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Eugene Willow]

Haven't you heard of proof by contradiction (AKA reductio at absurdum,
AKA indirect proof). It assumes an opposite hypothessis to what are
you trying to prove, and then derives a contradiction from it.

[Eugene Willow]

Prove *you* exist.
You're welcome.

[Boikat]

Wghich sort of cancels it out. The main point is that youstill did
not understand the cited site of your original post. You still fall
under the catagory of "Troll", possibly a "Loki Troll".

Boikat

[Desertphile]

Nobody here rejects the evidence that Creationism exists.


--
"I think he believes error bars are where people like him who
are consistently wrong go to drink."

[Eugene Willow]

On 26 Sep, 18:05, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>

> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> Nobody here rejects the evidence that Creationism exists.
>
> --
> "I think he believes error bars are where people like him who
> are consistently wrong go to drink."

How do you prove that all creationists aren't secretly parodists?
(Hint: You can.)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow
<willo...@hotmail.com>:

>An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
>http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism

Don't you ever tire of exhibiting yourself as a troll (i.e.
a moron)?
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Ernest Major]

In message
<de2d55c7-1111-42e7...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Eugene Willow <willo...@hotmail.com> writes

How do you prove that all living creationists aren't secretly parodists?
Or that all creationists aren't secretly absurdists?
--
alias Ernest Major

[Eugene Willow]

On 26 Sep, 18:25, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow

> <willowe1...@hotmail.com>:

>
> >An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> Don't you ever tire of exhibiting yourself as a troll (i.e.
> a moron)?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - McNameless

Calling people morons is so easy when you use fake names and
undeliverable emails.

[Eugene Willow]

On 26 Sep, 18:45, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <de2d55c7-1111-42e7-9fc4-9c3a6f102...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> writes

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 26 Sep, 18:05, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
> >> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
> >> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> >> Nobody here rejects the evidence that Creationism exists.
>
> >> --
> >> "I think he believes error bars are where people like him who
> >> are consistently wrong go to drink."
>
> >How do you prove that all creationists aren't secretly parodists?
> >(Hint: You can.)
>
> How do you prove that all living creationists aren't secretly parodists?
> Or that all creationists aren't secretly absurdists?
> --
> alias Ernest Major

Cdesign proponensism embraces absurdism as one of its foundations.

[eridanus]

El martes, 25 de septiembre de 2012 20:05:07 UTC+1, Eugene Willow escribió:
> On 25 Sep, 18:45, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 1:25 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> >
>
> > You really didn't read the article, did you?
>
> >
>
> > Boikat
>
>
>
> Let me sum up the essence of the proof:
>
> 1. We know world exists.
>
> 2. Therefore, world exists, for if it had not existed, it would not
>
> had been created.

This articulation is not correct. Perhaps you mean the Universe,
for the world is our planet. Then, we identify the place we live
as the world.
Then, if we exist, there exists also the world, whatever it is.

But that mere fact that the world exist, does not prove it was
created. This is anthropomorphic concept, to create. The idea
comes from living beings doing things, like borrow a hole in
the ground, or to build a hut, or to cut a stone to build a wall,
or to take some vegetables to make a rope, or string, etc.

Then, whatever the world is, or whatever its size, it is the place
where we are living and this all we can know; nothing else.
Unless you start developing some astrophysics.

>
> Let me also prove the creator wasn't supernatural. We will use the
>
> method called "proof by contradiction".
>
> 1. Assume a supernatural god exists.
> 2. Therefore, it must have created the universe, since we have already
> proven it was created.

You have not proven anything.
There is not any reason to believe a god exists.

In the same way that theist cannot explain why god exist, or what
is the cause of god existence, unless you tell me, "god exists,
because humans invented god, for several reasons."

Then, this planet exist, and we have an astrophysical idea at how
a planet formed.
But the basic concept of the Universe, how matter exists, the
electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc. including some
forms of matter not yet seen, or observed, is unknown. Science
is unable to explain how matter exists, even if they speak about
the big bang. Even if the big bang is real, science is unable
to say from where came out all the matter of the big bang
explosion.
Then, this is not so different to the theist that cannot explain
how a god exist, what is its cause, or it is eternal.


You have not proved anything.
Eridanus

[Slow Vehicle]

Hey, "Gene":
angels' wings did not evolve because angels do nit exist...

[Slow Vehicle]

...that's simply absurd...

[Ragnar]

"eridanus" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6649b234-abf3-4e48...@googlegroups.com...

> El martes, 25 de septiembre de 2012 20:05:07 UTC+1, Eugene Willow
> escribió:
>

> But that mere fact that the world exist, does not prove it was
> created. This is anthropomorphic concept, to create. The idea
> comes from living beings doing things, like borrow a hole in
> the ground, or to build a hut, or to cut a stone to build a wall,
> or to take some vegetables to make a rope, or string, etc.
>

I like 'borrow a hole in the ground'.
If I'd known you could do that, I would have saved a lot of time digging
holes.
R.

[Ron O]

On Sep 27, 3:10 am, "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> "eridanus" <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

You are way behind the times. What do you thinik our cavemen
ancestors did? I grant you that it does take some brain power to do
it. Even though chimps have the moniker of P. troglodytes you don't
see them borrowing any holes in the ground.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 04:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

So what are the terms on borrowed holes these days? Same as downtown?

[Eugene Willow]

On 26 Sep, 20:25, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El martes, 25 de septiembre de 2012 20:05:07 UTC+1, Eugene Willow  escribió:
> > Let me also prove the creator wasn't supernatural. We will use the
>
> > method called "proof by contradiction".
>
> > 1. Assume a supernatural god exists.
> > 2. Therefore, it must have created the universe, since we have already
> > proven it was created.
>
> You have not proven anything.
> There is not any reason to believe a god exists.

Of course, as I just demonstraded. Proof by contradiction works by
assuming the opposite of what are you tring to prove and showing it
leads to a contradiction. Here I have shown that god does not exist
because the existence of godis logically inconnsistent.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/27/12 4:22 AM, Ron O wrote:
> On Sep 27, 3:10 am, "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

>> [...]

>> I like 'borrow a hole in the ground'.
>> If I'd known you could do that, I would have saved a lot of time digging
>> holes.
>> R.
>

> You are way behind the times. What do you think our cavemen

> ancestors did? I grant you that it does take some brain power to do
> it. Even though chimps have the moniker of P. troglodytes you don't
> see them borrowing any holes in the ground.

Out of curiosity, have indications of any apes besides _Homo_ been found
in caves?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (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]

In message <k4229n$hcv$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

>On 9/27/12 4:22 AM, Ron O wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 3:10 am, "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I like 'borrow a hole in the ground'.
>>> If I'd known you could do that, I would have saved a lot of time digging
>>> holes.
>>> R.
>>
>> You are way behind the times. What do you think our cavemen
>> ancestors did? I grant you that it does take some brain power to do
>> it. Even though chimps have the moniker of P. troglodytes you don't
>> see them borrowing any holes in the ground.
>
>Out of curiosity, have indications of any apes besides _Homo_ been
>found in caves?
>

Fossilised bones of Australopithecus have been found in cave deposits.
This is not treated as an indication that Australopithecus was
cave-dwelling. (The model I recall is that leopards cached prey in trees
growing around swallowholes, and sometimes it fell in.)

Gigantopithecus fossils also come from caves.
--
alias Ernest Major

[eridanus]

Sorry, man. There is only a few years that I had started to write
in English. Then, I am not aware of the most common mistakes. Then,
as I am writing faster than I should, I cannot avoid to commit some
errors.

It is obvious English is not my mother tongue. I started to learn it
when I was 30, but never had a former training to write correctly.
Nevertheless, the spelling corrector calls me when I commit some errors,
unless in case like this, in which I mistook "burrow" with "borrow",
that to me sounds about the same. I had not heard much spoken English
to discern the difference. I am learning spoken English by hearing
some videos downloaded from youtube.

As for my writing abilities, I cannot believe I had learned so much,
in such sort time. I had even writing stories and had received countless
praises for my stories. Of course, these stories had less errors, for
I had more time to revise and correct my errors. But here I am a little
careless and to do not revise my messages.

Then, by burrowing of holes I was thinking about rabbits or moles digging
a hole underground. This is a form of creation, like a man making a hut,
or something.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2012 12:25:02 UTC+1, Ron O escribió:

> On Sep 27, 3:10�am, "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> > "eridanus" <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > news:6649b234-abf3-4e48...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
> > > El martes, 25 de septiembre de 2012 20:05:07 UTC+1, Eugene Willow
>

> > > escribi�:

>
> >
>
> > > But that mere fact that the world exist, does not prove it was
>

> > > created. This is anthropomorphic concept, to create. �The idea

>
> > > comes from living beings doing things, like borrow a hole in
>
> > > the ground, or to build a hut, or to cut a stone to build a wall,
>
> > > or to take some vegetables to make a rope, or string, etc.
>
> >
>
> > I like 'borrow a hole in the ground'.
>
> > If I'd known you could do that, I would have saved a lot of time digging
>
> > holes.
>
> > R.
>
>
>
> You are way behind the times. What do you thinik our cavemen
>
> ancestors did? I grant you that it does take some brain power to do
>
> it. Even though chimps have the moniker of P. troglodytes you don't
>
> see them borrowing any holes in the ground.
>
>
>
> Ron Okimoto

Sorry, Ron. I committed a silly mistake. I was thinking about
rabbits and moles. But I composed very badly the phrase. These
are the problems of an ignorant writing too fast.
So far, Humans are also known for having lived in caves, specially
in the most colder climates.


To write correctly is a problem of developing the correct reflexes.
Then, I had been writing in English during the last five years.
But I am 74 years old, and old age is not the best time to learn
to write correctly in a foreign language.


Eridanus

[eridanus]

El jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2012 17:40:01 UTC+1, Eugene Willow escribió:
> On 26 Sep, 20:25, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > El martes, 25 de septiembre de 2012 20:05:07 UTC+1, Eugene Willow �escribi�:

>
> > > Let me also prove the creator wasn't supernatural. We will use the
>
> >
>
> > > method called "proof by contradiction".
>
> >
>
> > > 1. Assume a supernatural god exists.
>
> > > 2. Therefore, it must have created the universe, since we have already
>
> > > proven it was created.
>
> >
>
> > You have not proven anything.
>
> > There is not any reason to believe a god exists.
>
> Of course, as I just demonstraded. Proof by contradiction works by
>
> assuming the opposite of what are you tring to prove and showing it
>
> leads to a contradiction. Here I have shown that god does not exist
>
> because the existence of godis logically inconnsistent.

i though you were a fundi doing an argument about the existence of god.

Eridanus

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:44:39 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow

<willo...@hotmail.com>:

>On 26 Sep, 18:25, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow
>> <willowe1...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
>> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>>
>> Don't you ever tire of exhibiting yourself as a troll (i.e.
>> a moron)?

>Calling people morons is so easy when you use fake names and
>undeliverable emails.

Trolling is by nature an occupation for morons (my
evaluation, which in the absence of contrary evidence shall
be considered valid), so if the shoe fits, as it seems to...

And while the email address is contrived (to prevent exactly
the sort of thing I assume you tried), the name is real.

Keep on trollin'...

[jillery]

Typos are a natural consequence of typing posts. Everybody does them.
Obviously spellcheckers help, but not in cases where the typo mutates
the word into another equally valid word. And sometimes typos add
unintended witticisms or puns, as in this case.

Now if you want to talk about real mis-stakes, just ask me.

[Earle Jones]

In article <lNT8s.13$51...@fx28.am4>, "Ragnar" <rag...@NOSPAM.com>
wrote:

*
Ray:

A burro is an ass.
A burrow is a hole in the ground.

You should try to know the difference.

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <f5222427-8b1c-4e0a...@googlegroups.com>,

*
Eridanus: You are doing fine! Keep up the good work.

PS: I am 81.

earle
*

[Eugene Willow]

On 27 Sep, 18:40, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> And while the email address is contrived (to prevent exactly
> the sort of thing I assume you tried), the name is real.

What thing ? I, for least, use my real email address.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow
<willo...@hotmail.com>:

Good for you; I don't. And, because of a bit of mild
harassment several years ago via email, won't. Deal with it,
and keep your remarks and responses public, as intended for
Usenet.

And the "thing" is your apparent attempt to contact me via
email, as you tacitly admitted doing. See? The evidence of
what I assumed is right there in the bit you quoted ("...the
sort of thing I assume you tried...", which would obviously
be an attempt to email me), at least for those not so
wrapped in the wonder of trolling that they've forgotten how
to think.

[Eugene Willow]

On 29 Sep, 17:49, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow

> <willowe1...@hotmail.com>:

>
> >On 27 Sep, 18:40, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> And while the email address is contrived (to prevent exactly
> >> the sort of thing I assume you tried), the name is real.
> >What thing ? I, for least, use my real email address.
>
> Good for you; I don't. And, because of a bit of mild
> harassment several years ago via email, won't. Deal with it,
> and keep your remarks and responses public, as intended for
> Usenet.
>
> And the "thing" is your apparent attempt to contact me via
> email, as you tacitly admitted doing.  See? The evidence of
> what I assumed is right there in the bit you quoted ("...the
> sort of thing I assume you tried...", which would obviously
> be an attempt to email me), at least for those not so
> wrapped in the wonder of trolling that they've forgotten how
> to think.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
> - McNameless

If your religion forbids you from giving out your email address, i
think you shouldnt be useing Internet at all.

[Slow Vehicle]

"Gene":

Angels' wings did not evolve, because angels do not exist.

Why are you so hot to pester people at home? You do a great job of
it, right here...

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:49:26 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article <ence68h4bsdeu4ed1...@4ax.com>):

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow
> <willo...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 27 Sep, 18:40, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> And while the email address is contrived (to prevent exactly
>>> the sort of thing I assume you tried), the name is real.
>
>> What thing ? I, for least, use my real email address.
>
> Good for you; I don't. And, because of a bit of mild
> harassment several years ago via email, won't. Deal with it,
> and keep your remarks and responses public, as intended for
> Usenet.
>
> And the "thing" is your apparent attempt to contact me via
> email, as you tacitly admitted doing. See? The evidence of
> what I assumed is right there in the bit you quoted ("...the
> sort of thing I assume you tried...", which would obviously
> be an attempt to email me), at least for those not so
> wrapped in the wonder of trolling that they've forgotten how
> to think.
>

Ah. So he has also tried to contact _me_. I _thought_ that I saw something
from 'Willow' in my spam-trap. I wasn't interested enough to look more
closely.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:05:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow

<willo...@hotmail.com>:

>On 29 Sep, 17:49, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow
>> <willowe1...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On 27 Sep, 18:40, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> And while the email address is contrived (to prevent exactly
>> >> the sort of thing I assume you tried), the name is real.
>> >What thing ? I, for least, use my real email address.
>>
>> Good for you; I don't. And, because of a bit of mild
>> harassment several years ago via email, won't. Deal with it,
>> and keep your remarks and responses public, as intended for
>> Usenet.
>>
>> And the "thing" is your apparent attempt to contact me via
>> email, as you tacitly admitted doing.  See? The evidence of
>> what I assumed is right there in the bit you quoted ("...the
>> sort of thing I assume you tried...", which would obviously
>> be an attempt to email me), at least for those not so
>> wrapped in the wonder of trolling that they've forgotten how
>> to think.

>If your religion forbids you from giving out your email address

It's not a "religion"; whatever gave you that silly idea? As
I said, it's a personal decision based on experience, and is
not open to "correction", by you or anyone else.

That clarified, this is Usenet, and is about public fora,
not private communication; you might want to write that on
the back of your hand for future reference.

>, i
>think you shouldnt be useing Internet at all.

While you are welcome to your "thoughts" they influence
neither reality nor my decisions regarding communications. I
hang up on telemarketers, but I'm more relaxed here and
respond to all sorts of bozos.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:33:36 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "J.J. O'Shea"
<try.n...@but.see.sig>:

I don't *know* that he tried, and he hasn't seen fit to
confirm or deny; he might have simply looked at my fake
address and realized that it *is* fake (which is pretty
obvious, even to the relatively clueless). But you're
probably correct; he seemed quite incensed in another post
that I don't use email for Usenet followups.

[Eugene Willow]

On 30 Sep, 16:34, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 13:49:26 -0400, Bob Casanova wrote

> (in article <ence68h4bsdeu4ed1f8r48pn519bns6...@4ax.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:21:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Eugene Willow

> > <willowe1...@hotmail.com>:

>
> >> On 27 Sep, 18:40, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>> And while the email address is contrived (to prevent exactly
> >>> the sort of thing I assume you tried), the name is real.
>
> >> What thing ? I, for least, use my real email address.
>
> > Good for you; I don't. And, because of a bit of mild
> > harassment several years ago via email, won't. Deal with it,
> > and keep your remarks and responses public, as intended for
> > Usenet.
>
> > And the "thing" is your apparent attempt to contact me via
> > email, as you tacitly admitted doing.  See? The evidence of
> > what I assumed is right there in the bit you quoted ("...the
> > sort of thing I assume you tried...", which would obviously
> > be an attempt to email me), at least for those not so
> > wrapped in the wonder of trolling that they've forgotten how
> > to think.
>
> Ah. So he has also tried to contact _me_. I _thought_ that I saw something
> from 'Willow' in my spam-trap. I wasn't interested enough to look more
> closely.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

You are lying. I have never sent an email to you.

[Eugene Willow]

Prove *you* exist, then we will talk.

[Slow Vehicle]

"Gene", baby:

I don't have to. I don't care whether you believe I exist or not.
Spam me and see.

If I don't exist, then even the voices in your head are demonstrating
that your claims are silly...

Angel's wings did not evolve, because the are no such things...
(BTW, I have gotten a LOT of mileage out of you using deviantart
drawings, the authors of which themselves said were _not_ "angels", to
illustrate your "ideas" about "angels"...)

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:21:19 -0400, Eugene Willow wrote
(in article
<a9b67630-5f38-493d...@r10g2000vby.googlegroups.com>):

Okay, so it wasn't you. I deleted it without reading it anyway.

[Eugene Willow]

*I* have no doubt that you exist, however I think that your science
may lead *you* to questoin your existence.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 1, 11:04 am, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

,<snip>

> *I* have no doubt that you exist, however I think that your science
> may lead *you* to questoin your existence.

...and I have no doubt that I exist, although many entertaining
conversations involving tequila cauld be dedicated to what "exist"
mean, in this context...

One thing it dies _not_ mean, "Gene", is that angels' wings _evolved_,
because angels' wings do not exist...

[Eugene Willow]

Yes! Evidence contradicts evidence! Science is so false!
^
|
|
that was sarcastic

[Slow Vehicle]

SSDD

[Friar Broccoli]

It is my impression that one cannot be a good scientist without
constantly questioning ones most fundamental beliefs - or a good
creationist without forever refusing to examine them.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Eugene Willow]

Please don't call me "baby".

> I don't have to. I don't care whether you believe I exist or not.
> Spam me and see.

I have no intention

> If I don't exist, then even the voices in your head are demonstrating
> that your claims are silly...

Not at all. The opposal is common to all religions.

> Angel's wings did not evolve, because the are no such things...
> (BTW, I have gotten a LOT of mileage out of you using deviantart
> drawings, the authors of which themselves said were _not_ "angels", to
> illustrate your "ideas" about "angels"...)

As I said, it does not matter what the author says about the work.
Need I reppeat my coldplay analogy?

[Eugene Willow]

On Oct 2, 5:59�pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:01:09 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

CP states truth in opposition to facts.

[Friar Broccoli]

I'd ask what facts, but don't know what "CP" refers to. Perhaps you
meant CD for Common Descent?

If you have something to say why can't you just say it with examples or
other specific information sufficient to figure out what you're talking
about?

I would be happy to provide evidence for common descent - if you will
agree to explain why or how creationism better explains the evidence.

[Slow Vehicle]

On Oct 3, 12:29 pm, Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> CP states truth in opposition to facts.

...inconsistent with absurdism...

[Eugene Willow]

Cdesign proponentsism.

[Friar Broccoli]

.

>Cdesign proponentsism.

It is a wise creationist who does everything possible to avoid having a
discussion of the evidence supporting biological evolution. How many
stinging defeats did it take you to gain this wisdom?

[Ron O]

I was just having a little fun. Typos happen all the time and we
often have intentional pun cascades in threads. I could not
communicate in any language except English because that is the only
language that I know. If someone spelled something wrong in German or
Russian I wouldn't even know it. We were just playing around with the
difference between word definitions. To borrow is to temporarily
acquire something from another person. Cavemen did temporarily borrow
caves (holes in the ground), but other apes do not seem to do that.
You meant to type burrowing. We all knew that.

No other critique was meant to be made, and I didn't consider the
language difference and how it might be misinterpreted so I
apologize.

To most people spelling errors and typos are not something to worry
about. I was just trying to be humorous continuing something that
Ragnar started. My own post had "thinik" in it and someone could have
rolled over on something like they don't like to thinik anything about
what cavemen used to do with their spare time.

Ron Okimoto

[discip...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:25:06 PM UTC-6, Eugene Willow wrote:
> An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
>
> http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism

God does not go by man's logic, it is not possible since God created time dinosaurs and cavedwellers long before he created humans.

Man must therefore at least try to understand God's thinking when it comes to explaining those things that where created before man.

I have studied God's thinking an offer the following for a possible concept for the basis of God's time.

according to Jesus there is a strong support that there are 7 seal which represent 7 earth ages, and each earth age is made up of 49 generations, these 49 generations seem to be the foundation of God's concept of time.

If 1 generation in the first earth age = 4,000,000 years and in the last earth age 1 generation = 4 years, this equation would produce a time-line that would be supported by recent scientific discoveries in carbon dating. This concept of God's time would be supported by 40 years per generation in the 6th earth age, however, it would give great support to the 400 years per generation given to the 5th earth age and God's meaning to the terms "Times" as written in Daniel 2:21, in which God changed "Times", changed time from what to what. God changed it from 400 years per generation to 40 years per generation. And God changed the 7th earth age from 4 years per generation to half that.
.

[Harry K]

Is there a creche someplace breeding you morons?

Harry K

[SkyEyes]

On Oct 6, 10:39�am, disciplea...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:25:06 PM UTC-6, Eugene Willow wrote:
> > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
>
> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> God does not go by man's logic, it is not possible since God created time dinosaurs and cavedwellers long before he created humans.

(1) "Cavedwellers" [sic], for the most part, *were* human, if not
exactly Homo sapiens sapiens; and (2) Got any L.O.V.E. (logical,
objective, verifiable evidence) that *any* "god" exists? Including
yours?

>
> Man must therefore at least try to understand God's thinking when it comes to explaining those things that where created before man.

You've got to provide evidence that a god exists *before* I try to
understand it's thinking. Which is a freakin' ridiculous idea,
anyway. If there really is a being that qualifies as a "god," there's
no way that a mere mortal human could "understand" its "thinking."

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

My hypothesis is that there's a factory turning them out, somewhere.

Oh...it just occurred to me: that's why the fundidiots homeschool.
Silly me.

[Earle Jones]

In article <412c24a0-eb59-481a...@googlegroups.com>,

*
Thank you very much for your thoughtful scientific explanation.

Now -- what exactly is this "God" think that you are talking about?

earle
*

[Eugene Willow]

On 6 Oct, 17:39, disciplea...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:25:06 PM UTC-6, Eugene Willow wrote:
> > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
>
> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>
> God does not go by man's logic, it is not possible since God created time dinosaurs and cavedwellers long before he created humans.

I am an atheist. CP posits that the creator wasn''t supernatural.

[Eric Root]

On Sep 26, 1:45 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <de2d55c7-1111-42e7-9fc4-9c3a6f102...@g4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Eugene Willow <willowe1...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 26 Sep, 18:05, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Eugene Willow

>
> >> <willowe1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > An article presents a matemathical proof for creationism:
> >> >http://mathfour.com/general/a-mathematical-proof-of-creationism
>

> >> Nobody here rejects the evidence that Creationism exists.
>
> >> --
> >> "I think he believes error bars are where people like him who
> >> are consistently wrong go to drink."
>
> >How do you prove that all creationists aren't secretly parodists?
> >(Hint: You can.)
>
> How do you prove that all living creationists aren't secretly parodists?
> Or that all creationists aren't secretly absurdists?
> --
> alias Ernest Major

How can you prove that all living creationists are not protists?

[Eugene Willow]

Me isn't. Q.E.D.

[RAM]

CP must stand for atheists in the "Communist Party"; since, in general
"cdesign proponentists" attempt to hide who they believe the IDer
actually is. Most IDists want it to be their conception of a deity
and some like to pretend they are neutral. Then there are the
thoroughly confused who can't offer a scientific explanation but
assert "truth" which obviously they alone are conveniently privy to.

[Eugene Willow]

Most likely the designer was some bored biologist.

[RAM]

This is it! A "bored biologist" is your assertion about the source of
all of earths life history.

And to top it all you assert "CP states truth in opposition to
facts." So the truth is "most likely the designer is a bored
biologist." So we can all accept this truth and not search for
explanations for life on earth but instead look to the other planets,
galaxies for "bored biologists."

Damn what a brilliant observation. Why didn't some bored biologist
think of it? Or are you one?

[Eugene Willow]

Not necessarily. As I said in other topic, CP involves time travel.

[RAM]

Time travel of the bored biologist is your explanation!

That goes a long way toward explaining nothing.

Troll.

[Eugene Willow]

Cdesign proponentsism does not follow Ockams Razor.

> That goes a long way toward explaining nothing.

Evolution goes toward explaining notihng, too.
> Troll.
Where?

[Boikat]

Diversity of species, relatedness of species.

>> Troll.
>
> Where?

Look in the nearest mirror

Boikat

[Eugene Willow]

Cdesign proponentsism aims to be a theory of everything:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything

[Boikat]

> Cdesign proponentsism aims to be a theory of everything:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything-

There is an oldish saying, "A therory that explains everything,
explains nothing".

Even so, your claim that evolutions "goes toward explaining nothing"
is inane and false.

Boikat

[RAM]

You have zero evidence of time travel! Isn't that enough?

You have as far as I can tell no concern about evidence only to assert
stupid notions of: bored biologists are potential designers, time
travel and that CP states truth in opposition to the facts.

Troll is the best description for your nit wit assertions.

[Eugene Willow]

Cdesign proponentsism is partly based on my personal experiences.

[RAM]

OK. Just what are these personal experiences?

[Eugene Willow]

I wouldn't rather post my personal details here in the public; emaile
me and I'll tell you more.

[RAM]

If its that personal I don't want to know.

[Boikat]

That's not the way it works. You've made a claim in a public forum.
Guess where you get to support your claim.

Boikat

[Eugene Willow]

Posting my personal data here could get me in trouble with the law.

[Boikat]

Illegal drugs, eh?

Boikat