Evidence for Creationism
The Starmaker
evidence for creationism,
I would have to do an upgrade
of the bible.
When the designer created the universe,
the designer/God said to himself...
"I'm going to create a earth with people
on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
I'm going to have to change the law of physics
on earth.
That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
to the laws of physics.
So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
on Earth."
So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
Do you know why He made those changes?
I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
And I don't lie.
The Starmaker
RAM
That is because you have no sense of right and wrong and/or reality
and myth.
>
> The Starmaker
chris thompson
> In order for me to provide
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
Are you God, that you consider yourself capable of upgrading the word
of God?
>
> When the designer created the universe,
> the designer/God said to himself...
You evidently think you know the mind of God. I think the word most
people use for that is "hubris".
Or perhaps you've experienced a revelation.
If that's the case, how are we supposed to tell the difference between
YOUR revelation and the revelation that induced a couple of
fundamentalist Mormons to kill 2 women and an infant, because the
women objected to polygamy? (As detailed in "Under the Banner of
Heaven" by Jon Krakauer)
>
> "I'm going to create a earth with people
Nice to know God don't use standard English grammar...
[yes intentional]
> on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> on earth.
>
> That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
> to the laws of physics.
Maybe you (not God) could explain the laws of evolution to us
biologists. Cuz I never heard of 'em.
>
> So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
> the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
> on Earth."
>
> So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
> are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
> to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
> pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
>
> Do you know why He made those changes?
Because he really hates artists and wants to see them all get cadmium
poisoning?
> I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
> in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
Ah, back to that "hubris" thingie.
>
> And I don't lie.
Megalomaniacs never lie. Why bother?
Chris
>
> The Starmaker
raven1
Is it "spot the looney" week again?
John Harshman
I take option B: I don't believe it. Were you aware that three primary
colors are entirely specific to the details of primate visual pigments?
I was looking at a mantis shrimp yesterday; they have 16 visual
pigments, and so at least 16 primary colors.
chris thompson
Are the avian visual pigments similar? And, what about insects? Many
insects see well into the ultraviolet IIANM. Are there pigments for
that?
Chris
John Harshman
Birds have four pigments, better distributed across the spectrum than
ours. I don't know much about insects.
Boikat
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
>
Not allowed. The Bible is inerrant the way it is. At least that's
what you lot keep claiming.
<snip blastpfamy>
>
> The Starmaker
Boikat
It's always "spot the looney week" here. Hadn't you noticed?
Boikat
Frank J
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
>
> When the designer created the universe,
> the designer/God said to himself...
>
> "I'm going to create a earth with people
> on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> on earth.
>
> That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
> to the laws of physics.
>
> So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
> the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
> on Earth."
>
> So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
> are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
> to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
> pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
Actually RBG are the additive primaries and magenta cyan and yellow
are the subtractive ones. I recall being puzzled at age 8 as to why
red and blue crayons gave a muddy gray instead of the violet I
expected. We can discuss wavelength, hue, value, chroma, tricolor
vision, etc. another time.
>
> Do you know why He made those changes?
>
> I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
> in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
>
> And I don't lie.
Well if you don't lie, you should have no problem sharing with us your
thoughts as to the "whats and whens" in addition to the "whys". Since
evolution-deniers are in such hopeless disagreement as to the age of
life and common descent, please tell us which ones are right and which
ones must be wrong.
>
> The Starmaker
Caranx latus
> On Nov 8, 12:26 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
>> are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
>> to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
>> pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
>
> Actually RBG are the additive primaries and magenta cyan and yellow
> are the subtractive ones. I recall being puzzled at age 8 as to why
> red and blue crayons gave a muddy gray instead of the violet I
> expected. We can discuss wavelength, hue, value, chroma, tricolor
> vision, etc. another time.
It could also be pointed out that the monitor that Starmaker is looking
at when he reads this uses red, green, and blue.
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_color>:
Media that combine emitted lights to create the sensation of a range of
colors are using the additive color system. ... Media that use reflected
light and colorants to produce colors are using the subtractive color
method of color mixing.
<snip>
Earle Jones
<93838e54-4260-4ff4...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 12:47�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:26:04 -0800, The Starmaker
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >In order for me to provide
> > >evidence for creationism,
> > >I would have to do an upgrade
> > >of the bible.
> >
> > >When the designer created the universe,
> > >the designer/God said to himself...
> >
> > >"I'm going to create a earth with people
> > >on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> > >I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> > >on earth.
> >
> > >That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
> > >to the laws of physics.
> >
> > >So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
> > >the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
> > >on Earth."
> >
> > >So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
> > >are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
> > >to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
> > >pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
*
The "additive" primary colors are red, green, and blue. In other words,
any of our perceived colors can be created by "adding" parts of those
three colors. (Hold a good strong magnifying glass in front of anything
that appears white on your TV set and you will see little dots of those
three colors.)
The so-called "subtractive colors" are cyan, magenta, and yellow. These
are the primaries that are used in prints and dyes.
(From Physics 101: Heat, Light, and Sound)
Now you can share your knowledge of how and why God changed the laws of
physics and the primary colors of light.
earle
*
Dana Tweedy
> In order for me to provide
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
So, why not just admit that Creationism is a religious belief, that has no
place in science?
>
> When the designer created the universe,
> the designer/God said to himself...
>
> "I'm going to create a earth with people
> on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> on earth.
Do you have any evidence that the laws of physics have changed?
>
> That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
> to the laws of physics.
Evolution does operate within the laws of physics. Nothing that can be
observed operates outside the laws of physics.
>
> So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
> the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
> on Earth."
>
> So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
> are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
> to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
> pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
>
> Do you know why He made those changes?
There's nothing to indicate that anything did change.
>
>
> I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
> in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
>
> And I don't lie.
That is a lie itself.
DJT
heekster
Right, you're just hubristic and stupid.
The Starmaker
If the "primary colors of paint" were the same as
the "primary colors of light"...then Artist would have
a problem. Everytime you mix the all colors, you keep getting White.
Erwin Moller
> In order for me to provide
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
Hi Starmaker,
WHy do you want to do that?
In former discussions you cowarded out with statements like: "I am just
a painter/artist.".
Don't get me wrong: That is perfectly fine with me, but I am surprised
to see you reappearing in here defending creationism.
I thought you had this laid-back attitude.
>
> When the designer created the universe,
> the designer/God said to himself...
>
> "I'm going to create a earth with people
> on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> on earth.
How do you know that the creator did that?
Do we have to take your word for it?
How convincing is that?
>
> That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
> to the laws of physics.
>
> So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
> the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
> on Earth."
>
> So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
> are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
> to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
> pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
>
> Do you know why He made those changes?
I don't believe the big creator exists.
Hence I don't believe he made such changes.
>
>
> I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
> in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
>
> And I don't lie.
That means nothing.
If you are a liar, you could have stated that too.
For your next posting: Try to be a little more convincing. Even
Madman/All-Seeing-Eye tries harder...
If you are in the business of convincing people your ideas about the
universe are right, be prepared to defend them in a serious way.
Just stating that God did this and God this that, because of this or
that, won't convince anybody but the most gullible.
>
>
> The Starmaker
>
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
The Starmaker
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> TheStarmakerschreef:
>
> > In order for me to provide
> > evidence for creationism,
> > I would have to do an upgrade
> > of the bible.
>
> HiStarmaker,
>
> WHy do you want to do that?
The bible was originally written for another place and time where
people
didn't have a high school or college education. It needs to be
upgraded for
today's times...
> In former discussions you cowarded out with statements like: "I am just
> a painter/artist.".
Since when is telling the truth, a "cowarded out statement"?
> Don't get me wrong: That is perfectly fine with me, but I am surprised
> to see you reappearing in here defending creationism.
Where did you get the impression I'm defending 'creationism'? There
are
two sides to every coin...I simply question both sides.
>
> I thought you had this laid-back attitude.
>
>
>
> > When the designer created the universe,
> > the designer/God said to himself...
>
> > "I'm going to create a earth with people
> > on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> > I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> > on earth.
>
> How do you know that the creator did that?
> Do we have to take your word for it?
> How convincing is that?
>
>
>
> > That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
> > to the laws of physics.
>
> > So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
> > the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
> > on Earth."
>
> > So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
> > are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
> > to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
> > pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
>
> > Do you know why He made those changes?
>
> I don't believe the big creator exists.
> Hence I don't believe he made such changes.
>
You're entitled to your beliefs...my post are for those with 'open
minds'..
>
>
> > I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
> > in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
>
> > And I don't lie.
>
> That means nothing.
> If you are a liar, you could have stated that too.
>
> For your next posting: Try to be a little more convincing. Even
> Madman/All-Seeing-Eye tries harder...
>
> If you are in the business of convincing people your ideas about the
> universe are right, be prepared to defend them in a serious way.
> Just stating that God did this and God this that, because of this or
> that, won't convince anybody but the most gullible.
>
Maybe you don't understand the 'language of creationism'...
try watching the "religious channel" to learn how creationist talk.
They are not like a chicken without his head saying "Where's the
evidence, where's the evidence!"
The Starmaker
If you're looking for 'dark matter' try not looking in the dark. Use a
flashlight.
Dan Listermann
"The Starmaker" <thestar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5051f267-ffcd-4507...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 4:57 am, Erwin Moller
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> TheStarmakerschreef:
>
> > In order for me to provide
> > evidence for creationism,
> > I would have to do an upgrade
> > of the bible.
>
> HiStarmaker,
>
> WHy do you want to do that?
"The bible was originally written for another place and time where
people
didn't have a high school or college education. It needs to be
upgraded for
today's times..."
Wouldn't that be a hoot!
.
Erwin Moller
> On Nov 9, 4:57 am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> TheStarmakerschreef:
>>
>>> In order for me to provide
>>> evidence for creationism,
>>> I would have to do an upgrade
>>> of the bible.
Hi Starmaker,
>> HiStarmaker,
>>
>> WHy do you want to do that?
>
> The bible was originally written for another place and time where
> people
> didn't have a high school or college education. It needs to be
> upgraded for
> today's times...
Okay.
So you are clearly not one of those that interpret the Bible literally
but metaphorically.
That is good. I would almost say Good.
(Only really stupid people think the bible is literally true. It is
simply not possible to be literally true because it contains many
contradictions.)
But now the question arrises: If we agree that the Bible is not the
literal truth, but metaphorical, why do you need it to be upgraded to
this time?
What is your motivation?
Do you want to lessons from the Bible to be more accessable to people of
this day and time?
If you are talking about things like "Don't be greedy" or "Do not kill"
and stuff like that, fine.
I can relate to that.
But what about the creationstory from Genesis?
How do you want to "upgrade" such stories to today's time?
>
>> In former discussions you cowarded out with statements like: "I am just
>> a painter/artist.".
>
> Since when is telling the truth, a "cowarded out statement"?
The 'cowarding out' was NOT about you telling the truth or not.
The level of truth of your claims is what we are discussing here.
And I cannot be the judge of that either in an absolute way, I can only
tell you what I think is the truth. You can take my word for it: I am
not as delusional as many creationists who think they know the truth.
The 'cowarding out' was a reference to our former meetings, where you
simply disappear, eg "Darwin The Creationist".
I dislike unfinished business and I keep getting more and more
unfisnished business if I talk to creationists.
So I try to stay a little polite, so they don't have the excuse of
leaving the discussion because my foulmouthed behaviour. ;-)
>
>
>> Don't get me wrong: That is perfectly fine with me, but I am surprised
>> to see you reappearing in here defending creationism.
>
> Where did you get the impression I'm defending 'creationism'? There
> are
> two sides to every coin...I simply question both sides.
Where did I get that idea?
Read your own original posting.
Here are a few quotes form your original posting:
[start quote]
> In order for me to provide
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
>
> When the designer created the universe,
> the designer/God said to himself...
>
> "I'm going to create a earth with people
> on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> on earth.
[end quote]
Startmaker, are you surprised I take you for a creationist?
Your posting starts with "In order for me to provide evidence for
creationism,".....
What do you expect a reader to think?
>
>> I thought you had this laid-back attitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>> When the designer created the universe,
>>> the designer/God said to himself...
>>> "I'm going to create a earth with people
>>> on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
>>> I'm going to have to change the law of physics
>>> on earth.
>> How do you know that the creator did that?
>> Do we have to take your word for it?
>> How convincing is that?
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is why the laws of evolution don't apply
>>> to the laws of physics.
>>> So God, said, "I'm going to take the law of physics,
>>> the "primary colors of light", and I'll have to 'change it'
>>> on Earth."
>>> So, He took the "primary colors of light", which
>>> are red blue and green, and changed the primary colors
>>> to red, blue and yellow for...earthlings. To paint
>>> pictures with...crayons, watercolors, oils...
>>> Do you know why He made those changes?
>> I don't believe the big creator exists.
>> Hence I don't believe he made such changes.
>>
>
> You're entitled to your beliefs...my post are for those with 'open
> minds'..
Yeah man.
I heard that line many times before and it keep irritating me.
Here is why:
You, Starmaker, the open minded ones, the creative ones.
And then the 'others': The tight-asses, the teachers, the scientists.
Confortable division, isn't it?
Don't confuse open mindedness with stupidity or a gullible attitude.
I consider myself very open minded, but an open mind doesn't mean you
should take everything for granted.
How do you consider the Eastern Bunny? Santa Claus? Shrek?
If you answer: "Tales for the amusement (of kids)" I tell you you are
not 'open minded' enough...
No, that 'open minded' argument is not working for me.
In my humble opinion real creativity that has a *meaning* is happening a
lot in science.
There is little room for subjectivity in science.
That means that IF you are a creative scientist, you are touching
reality with your creative work, preferably in a testable way.
That is a lot harder than, say, make a painting and claim it is highly
creative.
Maxwell was creative. Einstein was creative. Feynman was creative.
And they all thought up complex abstract ideas concerning reality.
Personally I don't care too much for 'open mindedness' when it is out of
sinc with reality.
For amusement? Sure.
But don't build your worldview upon it. Facts work a lot better.
>
>>
>>> I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
>>> in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
>>> And I don't lie.
>> That means nothing.
>> If you are a liar, you could have stated that too.
>>
>> For your next posting: Try to be a little more convincing. Even
>> Madman/All-Seeing-Eye tries harder...
>>
>> If you are in the business of convincing people your ideas about the
>> universe are right, be prepared to defend them in a serious way.
>> Just stating that God did this and God this that, because of this or
>> that, won't convince anybody but the most gullible.
>>
>
> Maybe you don't understand the 'language of creationism'...
Feel free to teach me then.
Maybe my english isn't well enough to appreciate the more subtle points
in the 'language of creationism', but don't forget I heard the same
stories in my own language many many times before.
In my humble opinion there is no such thing as 'language of creationism'.
What is wrong with plain english?
And if you are referring to metaphorical thinking, I can do so too.
So please tell me: What is this 'language of creationism' excactly?
> try watching the "religious channel" to learn how creationist talk.
I thought I heard the religious enough in here without that channel.
I have watched preachers on television.
I visited churches and listened.
I have heard many many hours of religious talking in my life.
What's more to hear/learn about this 'language of creationism'?
Tell me.
It simply doesn't make any sense to me, not because I don't UNDERSTAND
what they are saying, but because the creationists don't care too much
for reality.
>
> They are not like a chicken without his head saying "Where's the
> evidence, where's the evidence!"
The headless chickens are the ones that say: "I believe you! I believe you!"
>
> The Starmaker
>
>
> If you're looking for 'dark matter' try not looking in the dark. Use a
> flashlight.
Your ignorance concerning dark matter has been noted before.
No need to repeat it.
Regards,
Ye Old One
<thestar...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 4:57 am, Erwin Moller
><Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> TheStarmakerschreef:
>>
>> > In order for me to provide
>> > evidence for creationism,
>> > I would have to do an upgrade
>> > of the bible.
>>
>> HiStarmaker,
>>
>> WHy do you want to do that?
>
>The bible was originally written for another place and time where
>people
>didn't have a high school or college education. It needs to be
>upgraded for
>today's times...
No, just bin it.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
The Starmaker
I didn't simply disappear...the newsreader I use the most is:
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; U)
By the time I view Usenet postings using
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win95; U)
the postings are gone, replaced by new postings...I would have to empty
all new postings to get back to my last postings...and that can take hours.
There is an explanation for everything...there is no need to make-up
explantions like "'cowarding out' was a reference" or "black matter",
it's something you scientist do when you don't know what you don't know...
you make stuff up. And then you force others to believe it..teach it in schools,
colleges just like Sunday school.
>
> >
> >
> >> Don't get me wrong: That is perfectly fine with me, but I am surprised
> >> to see you reappearing in here defending creationism.
> >
> > Where did you get the impression I'm defending 'creationism'? There
> > are
> > two sides to every coin...I simply question both sides.
>
> Where did I get that idea?
> Read your own original posting.
> Here are a few quotes form your original posting:
>
> [start quote]
>
> > In order for me to provide
> > evidence for creationism,
> > I would have to do an upgrade
> > of the bible.
> >
> > When the designer created the universe,
> > the designer/God said to himself...
> >
> > "I'm going to create a earth with people
> > on it, but...(and this is the evidence part)
> > I'm going to have to change the law of physics
> > on earth.
>
> [end quote]
>
> Startmaker, are you surprised I take you for a creationist?
>
> Your posting starts with "In order for me to provide evidence for
> creationism,".....
> What do you expect a reader to think?
I don't care what others think. If I analyze something, and I take a Martian
point of view of it, does that make me a Martian??
It's not my problem you choose a hard career..you could've been a plumber.
You choose an 'onion career', peeling layers of onions for eternity.
>
> Maxwell was creative. Einstein was creative. Feynman was creative.
> And they all thought up complex abstract ideas concerning reality.
Which one said "God does not play dice."? Can you guess?? Must have been a Creationist!
>
> Personally I don't care too much for 'open mindedness' when it is out of
> sinc with reality.
> For amusement? Sure.
> But don't build your worldview upon it. Facts work a lot better.
You mean 'science facts'...facts that come from a method called...science.
There are other methods you haven't even touched cause you're confied yourself to 'science methods'.
You're limiting yourself...try the 'creation method'...or astrology....or something....different.
You science people had a few 'successes' with the 'science thing' and now it's gettin to your head!
Your head is going to explode!!
Perception is reality.
>
> >
> > They are not like a chicken without his head saying "Where's the
> > evidence, where's the evidence!"
>
> The headless chickens are the ones that say: "I believe you! I believe you!"
>
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> >
> > If you're looking for 'dark matter' try not looking in the dark. Use a
> > flashlight.
>
> Your ignorance concerning dark matter has been noted before.
> No need to repeat it.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> -- C.A.R. Hoare
Now where was I with the primary colors....before I got interupted by 'evolutionist'..
Don't you have "grants" to fill out? You probably spend half of your lifetime filling out 'grants' forms..
just so you can continue 'pealing onions layers'....
The Starmaker
So then, paint manufactures would have to use all the colors just to
make White paint....which can be very expensive for artist to use
since
they use White paint more than any other color. So God said,
"I'm going to have to change the primary colors for pigments on
Earth."
This means that 'evolution' has....(contrary to laws of evolution)...a
'direction'.
The Starmaker
Earle Jones
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:23:58 -0800 (PST), The Starmaker
> <thestar...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Nov 9, 4:57�am, Erwin Moller
> ><Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> >> TheStarmakerschreef:
> >>
> >> > In order for me to provide
> >> > evidence for creationism,
> >> > I would have to do an upgrade
> >> > of the bible.
*
Upgrading would be a good idea.
One way to start would be at the beginning.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
In modern times, when a character is introduced, we expect some
background on him. Tell us more about this "God" character before you
begin to make extraordinary claims about his achievements.
Just a suggestion,
earle
*
Caranx latus
You don't think that pigments would work the same way everywhere in
the universe?
<snip>
RAM
Snip
>
> > I thought I heard the religious enough in here without that channel.
> > I have watched preachers on television.
> > I visited churches and listened.
> > I have heard many many hours of religious talking in my life.
>
> > What's more to hear/learn about this 'language of creationism'?
> > Tell me.
>
> > It simply doesn't make any sense to me, not because I don't UNDERSTAND
> > what they are saying, but because the creationists don't care too much
> > for reality.
>
> Perception is reality.
But not all of it, Try jumping out the proverbial 30th floor window
if you think you can fly. Then of course there is the reality that
exists but is not yet perceived.
>
>
>
> > > They are not like a chicken without his head saying "Where's the
> > > evidence, where's the evidence!"
>
> > The headless chickens are the ones that say: "I believe you! I believe you!"
>
> > > The Starmaker
>
> > > If you're looking for 'dark matter' try not looking in the dark. Use a
> > > flashlight.
>
> > Your ignorance concerning dark matter has been noted before.
> > No need to repeat it.
>
> > Regards,
> > Erwin Moller
>
> > --
> > "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> > make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> > other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> > deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> > -- C.A.R. Hoare
>
> Now where was I with the primary colors....before I got interupted by 'evolutionist'..
Making confused colorful arguments about possible unrealities
>
> Don't you have "grants" to fill out? You probably spend half of your lifetime filling out 'grants' forms..
> just so you can continue 'pealing onions layers'....
Yes. But your idiocy is a good distraction to lighten the load.
The Starmaker
> In article <mikif512ebi9asadtbdtsulf4tpojj0...@4ax.com>,
I thought by 'this time' ..it should be clear to *everyone* -- that
God wishes to remain...hidden. He provided all the tools you need
to invent and discover the universe, he just hid the tools you need to
...discover Him. He has provided the appearance of design without the
evidence of design so
that He can continue to remain hidden, and you can continue your
search...otherwise why search?
The Universe was created for Information and Entertainment purposes
only.
But, when I saw what He did to the primary colors, I discovered His
Existence...
God is a Starmaker.
He makes Stars.
The Starmaker
Erwin Moller
Hi Starmaker,
Why didn't you answer the above one?
Let me start by saying your response was very disappointing.
You didn't put any effort into it.
Lame if you ask me.
If you are an artist, as you claim, I am sure you can do better than this.
OK, so now it is my fault you don't know the first thing about computers?
Weak, Starmaker, very weak.
Here is what happens:
1) You start discussions in here.
2) I take the time to answer you and give you a reply.
3) You never respond.
4) I complain about that rude behaviour.
5) You come back to me with the stupid response above. It is somehow W95
fault or your newreader that is 15 years old.
Wake up man: use a mirror.
How can I be responsible for your ancient hardware and software?
A real man would appologise.
When confronted with your own lies, made only 2 postings ago, you back
out like this? Martian stories?
I hope you are not surprised I call you a coward and a liar and in denial.
Listen man: I don't care too much if you are a creationist or not. I
like discussing that with you, but this lame 'cowarding out', like you
did just now, is really low.
I cannot have respect for such behaviour.
But let me guess: What do you care?
Facts are for boring unfree uncreative people, right?
Huh?
I doubt you have any idea what kind of work I do.
Let me give you a hint: I am not a priest.
>
>> Maxwell was creative. Einstein was creative. Feynman was creative.
>> And they all thought up complex abstract ideas concerning reality.
>
> Which one said "God does not play dice."? Can you guess?? Must have been a Creationist!
That was EInstein, and he was not a religious man.
It was a metaphorical expression, something that is hard to understand
for most creationists.
But then again, who cares about facts like Einstein being a religious
man or not?
Just claim as you feel like.
>
>> Personally I don't care too much for 'open mindedness' when it is out of
>> sinc with reality.
>> For amusement? Sure.
>> But don't build your worldview upon it. Facts work a lot better.
>
> You mean 'science facts'...facts that come from a method called...science.
I only know one kind of fact, and yes: that is a scientific fact.
What kind of facts do you know of?
>
> There are other methods you haven't even touched cause you're confied yourself to 'science methods'.
You know dipshit about me, so why should I care for you analysis?
What do you know what I have touched? What insights I have experienced?
But does that bother you in judging? Not at all.
> You're limiting yourself...try the 'creation method'...or astrology....or something....different.
Astrology? Seen that. STudied that. It is a load of crap.
Creation Method? I have still no clue what that is. The things that
comes most close to it is giving up my sanity.
Something different? Believe me, I did. ;-)
>
> You science people had a few 'successes' with the 'science thing' and now it's gettin to your head!
> Your head is going to explode!!
Bullshit.
Science have had many many succeses.
I think it is the heads of the most stupid amongst us, the creationists,
that have a hard time these days.
They have lost their power because everything they predicted, everything
they claimed, turned out to be bullshit. Lies.
We have seen that now for thousands of years.
Creationism leads nowhere.
Creationism doesn't give people more or deeper insights.
>
>
>>>>> I know the answer....and believe it or not..I'm probably the only one
>>>>> in the universe who knows the answer to that question.
>>>>> And I don't lie.
>>>> That means nothing.
>>>> If you are a liar, you could have stated that too.
>>>>
>>>> For your next posting: Try to be a little more convincing. Even
>>>> Madman/All-Seeing-Eye tries harder...
>>>>
>>>> If you are in the business of convincing people your ideas about the
>>>> universe are right, be prepared to defend them in a serious way.
>>>> Just stating that God did this and God this that, because of this or
>>>> that, won't convince anybody but the most gullible.
>>>>
>>> Maybe you don't understand the 'language of creationism'...
>> Feel free to teach me then.
>>
>> Maybe my english isn't well enough to appreciate the more subtle points
>> in the 'language of creationism', but don't forget I heard the same
>> stories in my own language many many times before.
>>
>> In my humble opinion there is no such thing as 'language of creationism'.
>> What is wrong with plain english?
>> And if you are referring to metaphorical thinking, I can do so too.
>>
>> So please tell me: What is this 'language of creationism' excactly?
Now?
What is it?
>>
>>> try watching the "religious channel" to learn how creationist talk.
>> I thought I heard the religious enough in here without that channel.
>> I have watched preachers on television.
>> I visited churches and listened.
>> I have heard many many hours of religious talking in my life.
>>
>> What's more to hear/learn about this 'language of creationism'?
>> Tell me.
>>
>> It simply doesn't make any sense to me, not because I don't UNDERSTAND
>> what they are saying, but because the creationists don't care too much
>> for reality.
>
> Perception is reality.
OMG.....
Now you start to irritate me.
Stop the wisecracks.
Try to show me you actually understand what we are discussing.
This is silly....
"Perception is reality".
HAHA!
When I was 12, I would maybe be impressed by that statement, but now....
You'll have to do better Starmaker.
Anybody who knows anything can think up such seemlingly wise remarks.
>
>>> They are not like a chicken without his head saying "Where's the
>>> evidence, where's the evidence!"
>> The headless chickens are the ones that say: "I believe you! I believe you!"
>>
>>> The Starmaker
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're looking for 'dark matter' try not looking in the dark. Use a
>>> flashlight.
>> Your ignorance concerning dark matter has been noted before.
>> No need to repeat it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erwin Moller
>>
>> --
>> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
>> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
>> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
>> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
>> -- C.A.R. Hoare
>
>
> Now where was I with the primary colors....before I got interupted by 'evolutionist'..
Oh sorry mate.
I didn't know I was interupting you.
Excuse me.
I though you were reading this newgroup on your Windows 95 machine that
cannot keep up with a few threads.
Sorry, my bad.
You won't find me walking into your home agian uninvited.
>
> Don't you have "grants" to fill out? You probably spend half of your lifetime filling out 'grants' forms..
> just so you can continue 'pealing onions layers'....
LOL, you silly man. ;-)
I never filled out a grant in my whole life.
Do you think you need to make a living in science to have a working brain?
Well, Bye Starmaker. Enjoy your prim. colors.
Look deeeeeeep into them and you'll find Truth.
Earle Jones
<e24c7991-c85f-4b3a...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
The Starmaker <thestar...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
I never made a Star.
I did come close with a Starlet once.
earle
*
The Starmaker
You're asking me "What are the primary colors of pigment on Mars?"
I've never been to Mars! When I get there I'll let you know...
The Starmaker
What question is that? These questions??
> >> But what about the creations tory from Genesis?
What about it?
> >> How do you want to "upgrade" such stories to today's time?
If I would to answer that Question, it would mean the End of Science.
>
> Let me start by saying your response was very disappointing.
> You didn't put any effort into it.
> Lame if you ask me.
No one is asking...
There you go again, I never said I "don't know the first thing about
computers".
Your brain does not work properly, ...are you aware of that?
>
> Here is what happens:
> 1) You start discussions in here.
> 2) I take the time to answer you and give you a reply.
> 3) You never respond.
> 4) I complain about that rude behaviour.
> 5) You come back to me with the stupid response above. It is somehow W95
> fault or your newreader that is 15 years old.
>
> Wake up man: use a mirror.
> How can I be responsible for your ancient hardware and software?
>
> A real man would appologise.
Why should I appologize for my newsreader? It just the way it works.
It's the
way it is.
Einstien said he was not an atheist.
They are "happier people"...
You get irriated easy...don't get married.
You're British! That explains your problem...you worship Kings and
Queens...
Do you talk with a fork in your mouth?
> I didn't know I was interupting you.
> Excuse me.
> I though you were reading this newgroup on your Windows 95 machine that
> cannot keep up with a few threads.
I have XP not Win95...
>
> Sorry, my bad.
> You won't find me walking into your home agian uninvited.
>
> >
> > Don't you have "grants" to fill out? You probably spend half of your lifetime filling out 'grants' forms..
> > just so you can continue 'pealing onions layers'....
>
> LOL, you silly man. ;-)
> I never filled out a grant in my whole life.
> Do you think you need to make a living in science to have a working brain?
>
> Well, Bye Starmaker. Enjoy your prim. colors.
> Look deeeeeeep into them and you'll find Truth.
>
> Erwin Moller
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> -- C.A.R. Hoare
Paul Reviere neve said "The British are coming!"
Boikat
No, since many pigments used to make white paint come in "white". The
only thing needed to be mixed is the carrier of the pigment.
> This means that 'evolution' has....(contrary to laws of evolution)...a
> 'direction'.
Non sequitur.
Boikat
Boikat
> In order for me to provide
> evidence for creationism,
<snip>
Still waiting for that "evidence" thing.
>
> And I don't lie.
Maybe you're just deluded.
Boikat
The Starmaker
"If" is the operative word..
Colors of White light don't come in White, you have to use all the colors of light to make White.
Boikat
You were talking about paint.
>
> "If" is the operative word..
>
> Colors of White light don't come in White, you have to use all the colors of light to make White.
Whatever. So, where's your evidence for Creation? You still seem to
be forgetting that part.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> In order for me to provide
> evidence for creationism,
> I would have to do an upgrade
> of the bible.
So, in order to provide evidence for creationism you'd need to fake
the evidence.
Glad we're clear on that.
RF