BANG!
Publius
Summary:
Keywords:
I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
'Star Trek' has explored the "God said..." approach in various
imaginative treatments but no one has come up with even an
imaginary explanation of how something very tiny went "Bang!"
- and here we are! All they can say is: "That's the way it looks
how it happened." Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
I don't know how everything happened but I am unshakeable in
my belief that somehow the answer lies in the word "Life" and
not the word "Matter". I believe that "Life" is a hierarchical
system and that somewhere out there in Infinite Space and
Time there is the "Ultimate Configuration of Life" that can do
anything it wants to do.
It is logical to think this if one can claim honestly to being
unprejudiced. For me, this is the beginning of all speculation
on the matter. All the rest is kid stuff.
PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
ksjj
I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and
condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
of a pin head. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
"Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
appear?
As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
see ya,
karl
--
"Where were you when I
layed the foudation of
the earth!
Tell me if you have understanding".....
God, Job 38:4
David Byrden
Publius wrote:
>
> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
Who cares what strikes you as plausible? The universe is not
obliged to limit itself to situations that you find plausible.
> 'Star Trek' has explored the "God said..." approach in various
> imaginative treatments but no one has come up with even an
> imaginary explanation of how something very tiny went "Bang!"
> - and here we are! All they can say is: "That's the way it looks
> how it happened."
I see. So you don't acccept that things are as they appear to be.
You don't accept genuine evidence of things. Why not?
> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
..and as for a lot of people believing in it..that proves nothing.
There was a time when EVERYBODY believed that the earth was flat. Alas
for them, it was round.
> I don't know how everything happened but I am unshakeable in
> my belief that somehow the answer lies in the word "Life" and
> not the word "Matter".
Beliefs are completely unreliable as a way of determining the truth.
You can find people to believe in any lie.
> I believe that "Life" is a hierarchical
> system and that somewhere out there in Infinite Space and
> Time there is the "Ultimate Configuration of Life" that can do
> anything it wants to do.
I believe that the moon is made of green cheese.
> It is logical to think this if one can claim honestly to being
> unprejudiced.
Surely your refusal to accept evidence is a prejudice?
David
George Acton
pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>
> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
TEN BEST EVIDENCES FOR CREATION:
10 The Burdick Footprint.
9 Paluxy Man.
From the size of the tracks, clearly a big mutha who
could play kick-@$$ with Nebraska Man and Piltdown
Man and hook up with their Neanderthal bowheads.
8 The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If you say it slow, with equal emphasis on the first
two syllables of "thermodynamics", it sounds scary and
totally mysterious, like some of the best parts of
the King James Version. Anybody who understands it
can't explain it, and anybody who can explain it,
doesn't have a clue to understanding it.
7 The Perfection of the Human Eye.
Awesome, except when it needs reading glasses, which
is due to Original Sin.
6 The Jesus Burrito.
5 The Last Supper Pizza Crust.
4 Human Remains and Artifacts in Coal Seams.
80,000 items found so far, including spear
points, campfire remains and a fossilized
video game.
5 The Best People Believe in Creationism.
Look at Isaac Newton. Look at Elvis. Look at
the Alabama Legislature.
4 The Worst People Believe in Evolutionism.
Hitler, Stalin, the Unabomber, Pee Wee Herman, liberal
welfare-slut-loving judges.
3 Flood Legends from All Over.
One South American tribe even has the part about
the rainbow.
2 Charles Darwin Turned Creationist on His Deathbed.
But he still has a lot of lost souls to answer for.
1 Pat Robertson is a Lot Richer than Carl Sagan,
clearly a sign of God's special favor. And not only
that, but on Judgment Day, Pat will be able to flip
him the finger.
Anyone who looks at this list and even has to think
about it one nanosecond is clueless or a Tool of Satan.
--George Acton
Kenneth Fair
In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(ksjj) wrote:
Just because your mind is too small to picture something doesn't mean
it isn't true. *I* can picture it very well, thank you very much.
But then I know that (a) matter, even solid brick walls, is mainly
empty space and (b) most of the matter in the universe formed from
the energy of the Big Bang, thanks to mass-energy equivalence.
Don't assume that your picture is the correct picture, either. The
physical laws of the early universe look substantially different than
current physical laws because of the high energy density.
A lot of people don't understand that our knowledge of the early universe
comes not only from astronomical observations (cosmic background radiation,
the expansion of galaxies), but also from our knowledge of quantum
mechanics. QM has been tested more than any other scientific theory
in history; it is the foundation for trillions of dollars worth of
goods. If our knowledge of QM was wrong, your computer wouldn't work,
everything electronic you own wouldn't work, most of our knowledge
of chemistry would be wrong, and so on.
As for faith, it takes nothing but faith to believe that God made
everything as you say in 6 days. At least with the Big Bang model,
I can go to an observatory and make observations myself and look at
the data and see what I think it points to. There's plenty of examples
in the scientific journals and even in popular science magazines of
people who have done just that. And then other people came along and
said whether they got the same answers or not.
Where did the Big Bang come from? I don't know, and neither does
anyone else. Sure, there could be a God who set things off. Personally,
I consider this the best evidence for the existence of God. But
we don't know. And it's pretty much impossible to find out.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | Power Mac! | Net since '90 | Net.cop
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu | CABAL(tm) Member | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
- B. Waggoner
Brian Roberson
In <4lu4f5$1r...@news.gate.net> pub...@gate.net (Publius) writes:
>
>Summary:
>Keywords:
> I don't know how everything happened but I am unshakeable in
> my belief that somehow the answer lies in the word "Life" and
> system and that somewhere out there in Infinite Space and
> Time there is the "Ultimate Configuration of Life" that can do
> anything it wants to do.
> on the matter. All the rest is kid stuff.
> PUBLIUS at <alt.fan.publius>
Actually, if you are logical, there is some very small evidence to
support evolution and none at all besides one book to support
creationism.
BCR
I.am...@sub.atomic.particle.com
pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>Summary:
>Keywords:
>
> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
OK then,...... the "Big Bang" created "God",.... then God created
the Universe in 7 days. It all makes perfect sense to me now.
> 'Star Trek' has explored the "God said..." approach in various
> imaginative treatments but no one has come up with even an
> imaginary explanation of how something very tiny went "Bang!"
> - and here we are! All they can say is: "That's the way it looks
> how it happened." Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
Ghostboy
On 28 Apr 1996 01:50:43 GMT, George Acton <gac...@softdisk.com>
annoyed the censors with:
>pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>>
>> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
>> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
>> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
>> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
>
>TEN BEST EVIDENCES FOR CREATION:
>
>10 The Burdick Footprint.
>
> 9 Paluxy Man.
> From the size of the tracks, clearly a big mutha who
> could play kick-@$$ with Nebraska Man and Piltdown
> Man and hook up with their Neanderthal bowheads.
Had a good time with both of these...
>
> 8 The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> If you say it slow, with equal emphasis on the first
> two syllables of "thermodynamics", it sounds scary and
> totally mysterious, like some of the best parts of
> the King James Version. Anybody who understands it
> can't explain it, and anybody who can explain it,
> doesn't have a clue to understanding it.
Mu hahhahahhahahahahahaha!~!!
>
> 7 The Perfection of the Human Eye.
> Awesome, except when it needs reading glasses, which
> is due to Original Sin.
Actually...that eye was my job.....well when I had a job....everyone
is a critic
>
> 6 The Jesus Burrito.
mmmm....nummmy
>
> 5 The Last Supper Pizza Crust.
skip it ....prefer...the unlevened kind
>
> 4 Human Remains and Artifacts in Coal Seams.
> 80,000 items found so far, including spear
> points, campfire remains and a fossilized
> video game.
hehe...I love doing stuff like that...
>
> 5 The Best People Believe in Creationism.
> Look at Isaac Newton. Look at Elvis. Look at
> the Alabama Legislature.
but don't where your glasses when you do....otherwise..ugh..
>
> 4 The Worst People Believe in Evolutionism.
> Hitler, Stalin, the Unabomber, Pee Wee Herman, liberal
> welfare-slut-loving judges.
ah....my people...*gets all teary eyed*
>
> 3 Flood Legends from All Over.
> One South American tribe even has the part about
> the rainbow.
ya...floods never happen there...
>
> 2 Charles Darwin Turned Creationist on His Deathbed.
> But he still has a lot of lost souls to answer for.
dont worry....takes more than that....but you'll see soon enough...
>
> 1 Pat Robertson is a Lot Richer than Carl Sagan,
> clearly a sign of God's special favor. And not only
> that, but on Judgment Day, Pat will be able to flip
> him the finger.
not unless Pat stops playing with himsel.....well....lets just
say...we'll see...
>
>Anyone who looks at this list and even has to think
>about it one nanosecond is clueless or a Tool of Satan.
> --George Acton
>
Yes George....and I'm sending you a nice wet dream for being so
honest.....course it will be about HILARY CLINTON.....
Mu hahhahahahaahahahaha!
Dont worry George...we will be seeing each other very soon....
Ghostboy --- A Non-practicing Atheist
Mike Maddux
In article <4lu4f5$1r...@news.gate.net>, Publius <pub...@gate.net> wrote:
>Summary:
>Keywords:
> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
As far as I'm concerned, the above statement says a lot more about YOU than
it does about either theory.
> 'Star Trek' has explored the "God said..." approach in various
> imaginative treatments but no one has come up with even an
> imaginary explanation of how something very tiny went "Bang!"
> - and here we are! All they can say is: "That's the way it looks
> how it happened." Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
Interesting theory - using the number of people who believe something as
evidence for it's truth. Science has gone beyond that approach, since it
isn't very dependable.
> I don't know how everything happened but I am unshakeable in
> my belief that somehow the answer lies in the word "Life" and
> not the word "Matter". I believe that "Life" is a hierarchical
> system and that somewhere out there in Infinite Space and
> Time there is the "Ultimate Configuration of Life" that can do
> anything it wants to do.
This is so vague that it really could coexist very happily with modern
evolutionary theory. That is, it says nothing that can be tested.
> It is logical to think this if one can claim honestly to being
> unprejudiced. For me, this is the beginning of all speculation
> on the matter. All the rest is kid stuff.
So you think that using the mental abilities that we have evolved in order
to study the clues that have been presented to us in as sytematic a way as
we can is kid stuff? Maybe so, but then your vague philosophy would have to
be classified as infantile.
Did you ever stop to think that humans tend to think life is very important
simply because we happen to partake of life? The universe doesn't
necessarily share this prejudice.
Mike
Mike Maddux
In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
<Snip: a lot of stuff about how unlikely the big bang seems>
>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
The REALITY of the universe is much more amazing and fascinating than the
myths that humans have dreamed up. That's why it's much more fun to see the
universe that is really there instead of spending your life wrapped up in
dogma.
The Bible, by the way, contains two contradictory creation stories. Do you
pick the 6 day one because it comes first?
Mike
Mike Maddux
In article <4lvvlc$i...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Libertarius <att...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> "The universal cosmic process was not created by any god or man; it
>forevere was, is, and forever will be, an Everliving Fire."
>
> Heraclitus of Ephesus, 500 BC(A)
'Nuff said!
Mike
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (ksjj) writes:
|> I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
|> "Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
|> condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
|> then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
|> and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
|> the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
|> miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
|> stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
|> picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
|> them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
|> compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
|> golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
|> of a pin head. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
|> "Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
|> (have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
|> the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
|> appear?
|> bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
|>
|> karl
As for the size compression, you need a little comprehension of the nature of an
atom to grasp that. Compress the atom down so that the electrons are all in the nucleus.
They neutralize the protons, and you are left with a mass of neutrons. Since a little
knowledge of atomic structure (I'll leave this part to you -- the research should do you
good) would tell you how large a neutron is relative to an atom, you should have no
problem with this part. Now, as it compresses, gravitational forces increase between
the neutrons (they are closer). Eventually, this becomes severe enough that it breaks down
into quarks. At this point, we have a situation where many of the generally understood
concpets of physics begin to break down (such as time, space, etc.) To say that the Big Bang
was the size of a pinhead is a mistake, as it is effectively of infinite size, as space
should have curved around it. (How long is the side of a Moebius<sp?> strip?)
I suggest reading up on a subject that you seem to know nothing about. BTW, there are three
differences between Big Bang and Bible -- 1. There is evidence to support the Big Bang.
2. Big Bang believers aren't fanatical about it -- they admit mistakes, and are open
to revision. 3. Big Bang theory can be explained -- Biblical creation can only be asserted.
--
Life is complex -- it has both real and imaginary parts
Jonah Mainwaring http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mainwarj
main...@rice.edu
Micheal Keane
>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>appear?
Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu)
Get the Nowhere Man FAQ at my webpage: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia
HE'S BACK AND IT'S ABOUT TIME -- WATCH DOCTOR WHO ON FOX MAY 14TH!
E-Mail me if you want to know more about the brand new two-hour movie.
frank
George Acton wrote:
>
> pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
> >
> > I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> > various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> > mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> > as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
>
>
> 10 The Burdick Footprint.
>
> 9 Paluxy Man.
> From the size of the tracks, clearly a big mutha who
> could play kick-@$$ with Nebraska Man and Piltdown
> Man and hook up with their Neanderthal bowheads.
>
> If you say it slow, with equal emphasis on the first
> two syllables of "thermodynamics", it sounds scary and
> totally mysterious, like some of the best parts of
> the King James Version. Anybody who understands it
> can't explain it, and anybody who can explain it,
> doesn't have a clue to understanding it.
>
> Awesome, except when it needs reading glasses, which
> is due to Original Sin.
>
>
> 5 The Last Supper Pizza Crust.
>
> 80,000 items found so far, including spear
> points, campfire remains and a fossilized
> video game.
>
> Look at Isaac Newton. Look at Elvis. Look at
> the Alabama Legislature.
>
> Hitler, Stalin, the Unabomber, Pee Wee Herman, liberal
> welfare-slut-loving judges.
>
> One South American tribe even has the part about
> the rainbow.
>
> But he still has a lot of lost souls to answer for.
>
> clearly a sign of God's special favor. And not only
> that, but on Judgment Day, Pat will be able to flip
> him the finger.
>
> about it one nanosecond is clueless or a Tool of Satan.
> --George Acton
What a fowl reply. I think youre not really serious. I think
your chicken to examine the evidence before youre very eyes. Just look
around yourself. Can cable tv be the result of a godless universe? Can
1024x1280 .gif files be possible without a god to make them? My god, man,
where do you think apple pies come from? America was built on the pie
plates of men much more deep-thinking that you are, and you do well to
meditate on THAT!
Evilution is a blight, a spot, a wet, slippery stroke of satan's
loins. The appearance of new forms in different strata are not evidence
of further creation, just that these creatures were extraordinarily
long-lived. And the fact that cows and tryranisaris wreckx arent fround
together in the same levels of the geological columns is that their
grazing patterns are different. And archypteroticks - the lizard bird
thing was nothing more than two different forms of life dying in the same
open grave, and morphing together over time.
Teach Creationism - any kind you want to - as an alternative to
evilution in schools and you will observe a drop in unwanted pregnancy,
gangs, guns, and a rise in lower academic performance. It is the
classification of types into a tree of increasing complexity which makes
us all mad. I mean crazy mad, not angry mad, but it makes me both kinds
of mad. So I guess it's both kinds for everyone else that counts too, so
forget that last.
And if you would read the bible, you would find that god
scattered the bones of animals that had never existed in the dirt just to
test our faith. And in the later years, we would be rent asunder in our
attempt to understand rather than to accept. Each man to his opinion as
truth, each opinion fed to the masses as truth, and never the twain shall
meet. Because it isn't an opinion, but revelation!
How about them apples? Refute that, you doers of evil incarnate.
-frank
Rich Bernstein
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair) wrote:
>In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
>(ksjj) wrote:
>
>>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>>you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and
>>condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
>>then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
>>and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
>>the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
>>miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
>>stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
>>picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
>>them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
>>compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
>>golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
>>of a pin head. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
>>"Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
>>(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>>appear?
>>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
>
>Just because your mind is too small to picture something doesn't mean
>it isn't true. *I* can picture it very well, thank you very much.
>But then I know that (a) matter, even solid brick walls, is mainly
>empty space and (b) most of the matter in the universe formed from
>the energy of the Big Bang, thanks to mass-energy equivalence.
Hmmm... that's the one part of the big bang I don't agree with. I
do not think that any matter was created. It didn't need to be... It
is only needed if there is a definite limit to the smallest subatomic
particle, that would make compression to a sufficient size impossible
(and we don't even know what a sufficient size would be -- it could
just be the size of a galaxy, or just an average star)...
>Don't assume that your picture is the correct picture, either. The
>physical laws of the early universe look substantially different than
>current physical laws because of the high energy density.
They're the same physical laws... They work too, why don't they...
And how would high energy density change this?
>A lot of people don't understand that our knowledge of the early universe
>comes not only from astronomical observations (cosmic background radiation,
>the expansion of galaxies), but also from our knowledge of quantum
>mechanics. QM has been tested more than any other scientific theory
>in history; it is the foundation for trillions of dollars worth of
>goods. If our knowledge of QM was wrong, your computer wouldn't work,
>everything electronic you own wouldn't work, most of our knowledge
>of chemistry would be wrong, and so on.
>
>As for faith, it takes nothing but faith to believe that God made
>everything as you say in 6 days. At least with the Big Bang model,
>I can go to an observatory and make observations myself and look at
>the data and see what I think it points to. There's plenty of examples
>in the scientific journals and even in popular science magazines of
>people who have done just that. And then other people came along and
>said whether they got the same answers or not.
>
>Where did the Big Bang come from? I don't know, and neither does
>anyone else. Sure, there could be a God who set things off. Personally,
>I consider this the best evidence for the existence of God. But
>we don't know. And it's pretty much impossible to find out.
Perhaps the attraction between all matter before it was great enough
and aligned right to allow the breaking up of particles into smaller
ones, and to crash together into a relatively small space. Then the
laws of entropy and repulsion won out instantly at a certain point,
and exploded the compression... Perhaps this happened an infinite
amount of times before now, and will happen again later an infinite
amount of times... Perhaps matter (and energy) is the absolute thing,
not God.
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
Rich Bernstein
ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrote:
>In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
>ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>>(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>>appear?
>
>Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
Of course not, to them... To them, God is infinite, and has always
existed. But that, to them, is impossible for matter...
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
Rich Bernstein
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and
>condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
>then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
>and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
>the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
>miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
>stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
>picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
>them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
>compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
>golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
>of a pin head. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
>"Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
>(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>appear?
>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
Do you believe in atoms and the subatomic particles that make them?
The subatomic particles (protons+neutrons+electrons) that make up the
atom in total are a lot smaller than the atom looks (just like it you
put all of the atoms in the solar system together, it would be much
smaller than the whole solar system is with the empty space (probably
much smaller than the sun). Now, these p+e+n's are made of smaller
subatomic particles, which are made of smaller ones, which are
probably made of smaller ones, etc... Thus, just by going down two or
three levels, the solar system could be compressed into smaller than
the size of a golf ball. If you go down 10 or 100 levels (there are
most likely more than that many), this would probably end up smaller
than an electron, for the whole solar system. Another one or two
levels, and you would fit the whole universe in a golfball. two more,
and you've got a pinhead. 5 more, and you've got the size of an atom
from the size of the universe... Of course, it makes no difference if
the universe was compressed to the size of a golfball, atom, electron,
solar system, bigger... Just that it was all together... Of course,
the bigger the compression, the bigger the bang, and the faster the
entropy.
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
ksjj
> In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
> >"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>
> <Snip: a lot of stuff about how unlikely the big bang seems>
>
> >As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
> >bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
>
> The REALITY of the universe is much more amazing and fascinating than the
> myths that humans have dreamed up. That's why it's much more fun to see the
> universe that is really there instead of spending your life wrapped up in
> dogma.
>
> The Bible, by the way, contains two contradictory creation stories. Do you
> pick the 6 day one because it comes first?
>
There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you read
that from?
ksjj
Yup, FAITH. like I said.
ksjj
In article <4m0fig$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
(Micheal Keane) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
> >the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
> >appear?
>
> Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
> --
God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
created the nothingness to put the universe in.
God always was and never was He not.
Erik Marksberry
On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, ksjj wrote:
>
> In article <4m0fig$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
> (Micheal Keane) wrote:
>
> > In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
> > ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
> > >the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
> > >appear?
> >
> > Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
> > --
>
> God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
> created the nothingness to put the universe in.
>
> God always was and never was He not.
Why can't the same be true of the universe?
Erik Marksberry
Austin Cline
Follups trimmed.
In article <4lu4f5$1r...@news.gate.net>, pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>Summary:
>Keywords:
>
> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
For absolutely no reason which you can provide, rendering your observation
valueless.
> I don't know how everything happened but I am unshakeable in
> my belief that somehow the answer lies in the word "Life" and
> not the word "Matter". I believe that "Life" is a hierarchical
> system and that somewhere out there in Infinite Space and
> Time there is the "Ultimate Configuration of Life" that can do
> anything it wants to do.
A belief for which you can provide absolutely no reasons or evidence,
rendering your observation valueless.
> It is logical to think this if one can claim honestly to being
> unprejudiced. For me, this is the beginning of all speculation
> on the matter. All the rest is kid stuff.
"Prejudiced" means to have "prejudged." You have already stated that you
are "unshakable" in your belief - making you dogmatic and uncomprimising.
No matter what arguments or evidence is presented, you will not change
your belief. You have *already* decided on the conclusion and are now
desperately seeking support - and failing. This (except for the failure
part) is practically the *definition* of "prejudiced." *You*, publius, are
prejudiced in your observations *by your own words*. Thus, you are not
involved in "speculation," but pure self-serving fantasy.
This dishonesty is *precisely* why everyone dismisses you.
Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- People think the world needs a republic, and they think it needs a new
social order, and a new religion, but it never occurs to anyone that what the
world really needs, confused as it is by much learning, is a Socrates. [Soren
Kierkegaard; The Sickness Unto Death (p. 124)]
Kenneth Fair
In article <3183ea5b...@news.zipnet.net>, ri...@zipnet.net wrote:
>kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair) wrote:
>
>>Just because your mind is too small to picture something doesn't mean
>>it isn't true. *I* can picture it very well, thank you very much.
>>But then I know that (a) matter, even solid brick walls, is mainly
>>empty space and (b) most of the matter in the universe formed from
>>the energy of the Big Bang, thanks to mass-energy equivalence.
>
> Hmmm... that's the one part of the big bang I don't agree with. I
>do not think that any matter was created. It didn't need to be... It
>is only needed if there is a definite limit to the smallest subatomic
>particle, that would make compression to a sufficient size impossible
>(and we don't even know what a sufficient size would be -- it could
>just be the size of a galaxy, or just an average star)...
It's not that it would necessarily *need* to have been, but it would
have been a spontaneous result of the extremely high temperatures in
the early universe. At very high energies, particle/antiparticle
pairs are created and destroyed spontaneously at a very high rate.
A slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter creation lead to
the antimatter being cancelled back out into energy and the dribblets
of mass which remained became the stars, galaxies, etc. The large
scale structures (galactic clusters) formed because of slight
anisotropies ("bumps") in the Big Bang.
>>Don't assume that your picture is the correct picture, either. The
>>physical laws of the early universe look substantially different than
>>current physical laws because of the high energy density.
>
> They're the same physical laws... They work too, why don't they...
>And how would high energy density change this?
At high energies, fundamental particles act differently. For example,
Carlo Rubbia at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) won the
Nobel Prize (1983, I think) for showing that at high enough energies,
the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces became two aspects of the
same force, a.k.a. the "electroweak" force. Theorists speculate that
this is also the case for the strong nuclear force (Grand Unified Theories)
and gravity (Theory of Everything). But this happens at much higher
energies (energies near the Big Bang energy) and is much harder to
do in the lab.
> Perhaps the attraction between all matter before it was great enough
>and aligned right to allow the breaking up of particles into smaller
>ones, and to crash together into a relatively small space. Then the
>laws of entropy and repulsion won out instantly at a certain point,
>and exploded the compression... Perhaps this happened an infinite
>amount of times before now, and will happen again later an infinite
>amount of times... Perhaps matter (and energy) is the absolute thing,
>not God.
Sure, that's one possibility, the infinite Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch
cycle. It could just be that some alien engineer REALLY screwed up
one day.
"Oh no, she's going to blow!!"
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | Power Mac! | Net since '90 | Net.cop
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu | CABAL(tm) Member | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, a
self-perpetuating autocracy..." - Dennis
Rusty Meathook
frank <fde...@airmail.net> wrote:
> What a fowl reply. I think youre not really serious. I think
>your chicken to examine the evidence before youre very eyes. Just look
>around yourself. Can cable tv be the result of a godless universe? Can
>1024x1280 .gif files be possible without a god to make them? My god, man,
>where do you think apple pies come from? America was built on the pie
>plates of men much more deep-thinking that you are, and you do well to
>meditate on THAT!
I must concede -- God makes all my gif and jpg files. I have no gif
or jpg over 30 bytes because they use GodCompression <tm>, a lossless
video compression able to reduce the size of any type of video image
by 100000% or more. They're all 1600x1200 with 24-bit color.
Apple pies come from the same place jelly donuts and Twinkies come
from -- the Confection Ghost. He helps bakers and cops to do their
jobs. God also made all cops. Except the racist ones -- Satan made
those. He's a meany. Satan makes rotten-tuna filled donuts. Hey,
stop thinking those nasty thoughts! You're just a tool of Satan! And
I mean a tool like you hammer nails with, not a fallic symbol! I've
cleansed my thoughts of sexual things! All my gifs and jpgs are of
JESUS! Jesus is there to comfort me in the background when I get a
GPF in Windows! God made Windows! I mean, Satan did. Wait....
--- Rusty Meathook
Marek Konski
> imaginative treatments but no one has come up with even an
> imaginary explanation of how something very tiny
Well, it wasn't even tiny at all, because there were no measures to
measure it.
>went "Bang!"
Marek
Marek Konski
In <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net> ks...@fast.net (ksjj)
writes:
>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of
the
>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order
for
and
It is a re-post, ins't it?
frank
Rusty Meathook wrote:
> from -- the Confection Ghost. He helps bakers and cops to do their
> jobs. God also made all cops. Except the racist ones -- Satan made
> those. He's a meany.
That's really the problem, isn't it? Not nearly enough donuts.
-frank
Ghostboy
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:43:26 -0700, frank <fde...@airmail.net> annoyed
the censors with:
mmmmmmm....donuts...
Kevin Benko
Newsgroups and followups trimmed
In on Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:49:52 -0400 ksjj (ks...@fast.net) said:
%:There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you read
%:that from?
%:karl
The Bible.
--
Don't argue with me, / Mathematics / Kevin Benko fnord / my stress
Don't agree with me, / Bicycling / kev...@oasis.ot.com / is bigger
Don't listen to me; / Kaffee / http://www.ot.com/~kevinb / than your
Just humor me. / Angst / finger for geek code / stress.
zpb...@trident.tec.sc.us
In article <3183ebc2...@news.zipnet.net>, ri...@zipnet.net (Rich Bernstein) writes:
> ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrot>>
>>Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
>
> existed. But that, to them, is impossible for matter...
> Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
This is a problem for either side. Peronally I find it easier to believe in
God, an unknowable, beyond human experience or conception God than that matter
just popped up. Under certain conditions matter or virtual matter can be
created but it takes conditions that have to be imposed. God could impose
those conditions while nothing, the prematter universe, could not. As an
aside, a literal interpretation of seven days to create the universe is
unlikely. One instant or a million years was related into a form people could
understand and to give reason to having a day of rest. Another social benefit
of religion.
Jim
Monument
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
: created the nothingness to put the universe in.
: God always was and never was He not.
"The universe" always was and never was "the universe not".
Even if "God" did exist outside of time and space as we know it, it
would be impossible, given a creationist view, to NOT think that
something/someone must have created "God" as well.
Under creationism, there would be a never-ending cascade of creators
to deal with, each one immeasurably more powerful than the one before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeff Goslin - Monument | "Oh Bentson, you are so |
| jggo...@vela.acs.oakland.edu | mercifully free from the |
| | ravages of intellect." |
| http://www.acs.oakland.edu/links/jggoslin | --Evil, The Time Bandits |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| how come everyone elses religion is a cult but your cult is a religion |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghostboy
On 29 Apr 1996 08:17:23 -0400, kev...@oasis.ot.com (Kevin Benko)
annoyed the censors with:
>Newsgroups and followups trimmed
>
>In on Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:49:52 -0400 ksjj (ks...@fast.net) said:
>
>%:There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you read
>%:that from?
actually the bible has two versions......in genesis...
take a look....
the bible is just a record of certain oral traditions...ie the old
testament...and a collection of sermons...ie the new testament
with sprinklings of other stuff like songs...etc...
not exactly objective...and very contradictory...
Akshay Patki
zpb...@trident.tec.sc.us wrote:
>This is a problem for either side. Peronally I find it easier to believe in
>God, an unknowable, beyond human experience or conception God than that matter
>just popped up.
Apart from the matter of taste, some Inflationary models of the
Universe allow matter/energy to be created out of nothing by balancing
it off with the energy of the gravitational field. Anyway, because
theory does not yet say anything about stuff before t=10^-43 seconds,
speaking about whatever popped up and how should be done with care.
> Under certain conditions matter or virtual matter can be created but it takes
>conditions that have to be imposed.
Why do these conditions have to be imposed/caused? Why can they not
just be?
> As an aside, a literal interpretation of seven days to create the universe is
>unlikely. One instant or a million years was related into a form people could
>understand and to give reason to having a day of rest. Another social benefit
>of religion.
>Jim
God should have told people that they were too ignorant at the moment
to understand, and told them to find out how He did it, if they wanted
to. Surely that would have given better results, i.e. less biblical
literalists/scientific creationists etc.etc.etc.
-Akshay
Derek Bell
> From the size of the tracks, clearly a big mutha who
> could play kick-@$$ with Nebraska Man and Piltdown
> Man and hook up with their Neanderthal bowheads.
Yeah! Yeah! Kick ass!!!
> 6 The Jesus Burrito.
NO WAY!!! It was a natcho!!!!!!!
> 5 The Last Supper Pizza Crust.
Ohhhh yeahhhh... I think I ate it last night!
This stuff doesn't convince me... I must be a tool of Satan... Heheheh
I said "tool"!
Beavis
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
Remember, `Exon' is a four-letter word.
Chris Krolczyk
David Byrden (Go...@iol.ie) wrote:
: Publius wrote:
: >
: > various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
: > mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
: > as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
: Who cares what strikes you as plausible? The universe is not
: obliged to limit itself to situations that you find plausible.
Unfortunately, such logic is a lost cause where Pooby's concerned. The
more you attempt to reason with him, the more you realize the value
of a killfile. The crossposts bear this out.
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Libertarius
In <4m2ttp$5...@news2.acs.oakland.edu> jggo...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
(Monument) writes:
>
>ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
>: God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
>: created the nothingness to put the universe in.
>
>: God always was and never was He not.
>
>"The universe" always was and never was "the universe not".
>
>Even if "God" did exist outside of time and space as we know it, it
>would be impossible, given a creationist view, to NOT think that
>something/someone must have created "God" as well.
>
>Under creationism, there would be a never-ending cascade of creators
>to deal with, each one immeasurably more powerful than the one before.
-----------------------------------
This was one of the major hangups of the ancient Gnostics, who
couldn't figure out an answer to this question, especially in view of
all the evil in the world, so they postulated a Demiurgos, YHWH, who
created this world, but who himself was created by the highre-order
Creator.
They apparently didn't analyze it any further, i.e. where that
higher order God came from, etc.
Libertarius
>
>
Rich Bernstein
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair) wrote:
>In article <3183ea5b...@news.zipnet.net>, ri...@zipnet.net wrote:
>
>>kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair) wrote:
>>
>>>Just because your mind is too small to picture something doesn't mean
>>>it isn't true. *I* can picture it very well, thank you very much.
>>>But then I know that (a) matter, even solid brick walls, is mainly
>>>empty space and (b) most of the matter in the universe formed from
>>>the energy of the Big Bang, thanks to mass-energy equivalence.
>>
>> Hmmm... that's the one part of the big bang I don't agree with. I
>>do not think that any matter was created. It didn't need to be... It
>>is only needed if there is a definite limit to the smallest subatomic
>>particle, that would make compression to a sufficient size impossible
>>(and we don't even know what a sufficient size would be -- it could
>>just be the size of a galaxy, or just an average star)...
>
>It's not that it would necessarily *need* to have been, but it would
>have been a spontaneous result of the extremely high temperatures in
>the early universe. At very high energies, particle/antiparticle
>pairs are created and destroyed spontaneously at a very high rate.
>A slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter creation lead to
>the antimatter being cancelled back out into energy and the dribblets
>of mass which remained became the stars, galaxies, etc. The large
>scale structures (galactic clusters) formed because of slight
>anisotropies ("bumps") in the Big Bang.
Well, I also don't believe that matter/antimatter cancel each other
out or make energy. They may force each other to break up, and
perhaps produce light... but light is matter (photons with lots of
energy).
>
>
>>>Don't assume that your picture is the correct picture, either. The
>>>physical laws of the early universe look substantially different than
>>>current physical laws because of the high energy density.
>>
>> They're the same physical laws... They work too, why don't they...
>>And how would high energy density change this?
>
>At high energies, fundamental particles act differently. For example,
>Carlo Rubbia at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) won the
>Nobel Prize (1983, I think) for showing that at high enough energies,
>the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces became two aspects of the
>same force, a.k.a. the "electroweak" force. Theorists speculate that
>this is also the case for the strong nuclear force (Grand Unified Theories)
>and gravity (Theory of Everything). But this happens at much higher
>energies (energies near the Big Bang energy) and is much harder to
>do in the lab.
Do they really act differently? Or do the other factors cause
enough influence to make it seem like they act differently? If I
shoot something up really fast, it has enough energy to escape the
earth's gravity... Does that mean that at that speed, gravity no
longer exists between the earth and the object? No. It just can't be
as easily perceived.
>
>> Perhaps the attraction between all matter before it was great enough
>>and aligned right to allow the breaking up of particles into smaller
>>ones, and to crash together into a relatively small space. Then the
>>laws of entropy and repulsion won out instantly at a certain point,
>>and exploded the compression... Perhaps this happened an infinite
>>amount of times before now, and will happen again later an infinite
>>amount of times... Perhaps matter (and energy) is the absolute thing,
>>not God.
>
>Sure, that's one possibility, the infinite Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch
>cycle. It could just be that some alien engineer REALLY screwed up
>one day.
Where'd the alien engineer come from?
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
Rich Bernstein
zpb...@trident.tec.sc.us wrote:
>In article <3183ebc2...@news.zipnet.net>, ri...@zipnet.net (Rich Bernstein) writes:
>> ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrot>>
>>>Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
>>
>> Of course not, to them... To them, God is infinite, and has always
>> existed. But that, to them, is impossible for matter...
>This is a problem for either side. Peronally I find it easier to believe in
>God, an unknowable, beyond human experience or conception God than that matter
>just popped up.
How about matter that always existed? That seems as easy as a God
that always existed, or a God that just popped up...
>Under certain conditions matter or virtual matter can be
>created but it takes conditions that have to be imposed. God could impose
>those conditions while nothing, the prematter universe, could not.
Except.... Where'd God come from?
>As an
>aside, a literal interpretation of seven days to create the universe is
>unlikely. One instant or a million years was related into a form people could
>understand and to give reason to having a day of rest. Another social benefit
>of religion.
You don't need religion to have a day of rest.... You can just say
"I do not want to work every day, so I will rest one out of every 5 or
10 days". That is, of course, if you have any will power whatsoever.
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
Rich Bernstein
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <4m0fig$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
>(Micheal Keane) wrote:
>
>> In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
>> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>> >the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>> >appear?
>>
>> Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
>> --
>
>God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
>created the nothingness to put the universe in.
But, how did he appear in this area outside of time and space?
>God always was and never was He not.
Why can't the same be said about this universe, and matter?
Rich Bernstein (ri...@zipnet.net)
//
Let's see Karl started with the transitional fossils and lost on that.
Then he started his Ark fantasy,
Then he skrewed up on Beetle
I'm sure I'm skipping others.
Now Karl will demonstrate his ignorance on cosmology.
In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and
>condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
Not at all. Imagine a star 10 times the size of our own sun condensed
to the size of mercury.
It's called a nuetron star. A table spoon sized of nuetron star matter
weighs as much as 100,000 battleships.
But they are there, and I've not even gotten to black holes!
Heck, if the matter condensed to the size of golf ball is hard for you
to imagine, you are very dim.
>then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
>and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
>the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
>miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
>stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
>picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
>them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
>compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
>golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
>of a pin head.
For the big bang, it's smaller.
> Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
>"Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
>(have faith) in.
Nope, ever here of Bell Labs Karl? Know why they are part of the
Big Bang discovery? Ever hear of red shifting Karl?
>I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded?
What do you mean "before" when time didn't exist?
> Did it just
>appear?
Appearently it did.
>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
It takes even more faith to think you know what you're talking about.
Karl, you were born 1000 years too late.
My fourth attempt to challenge you to gold fish surviving in salt water.
You game?
Steve "Chris" Price
Assistant Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 520,000,000 BC."
Jonathan W. Hendry
zpb...@trident.tec.sc.us wrote:
>
> In article <3183ebc2...@news.zipnet.net>, ri...@zipnet.net (Rich Bernstein) writes:
> > ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrot>>
> >
> > existed. But that, to them, is impossible for matter...
>
> This is a problem for either side. Peronally I find it easier to believe in
> God, an unknowable, beyond human experience or conception God than that matter
> created but it takes conditions that have to be imposed. God could impose
> aside, a literal interpretation of seven days to create the universe is
> unlikely. One instant or a million years was related into a form people could
> understand and to give reason to having a day of rest. Another social benefit
> of religion.
Not only that, but isn't it kind of arrogant and presumptuous to say that Genesis
is *exactly* what happened? Genesis is pretty simple to understand. It originated
thousands of years ago, correct? It seems really arrogant to think that a person
of that era (probably a primarily nomadic period) could fully grasp, comprehend,
and describe a divine act as vast as the creation of the Universe.
At the very least it's the height of hubris.
- Jon
geomon
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
<snip blather>
>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
No. As YOU can plainly see.
The rest of us are more familiar with the facts.
Geo
Nathan Lorenz
In article <3182A9...@iol.ie>, David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Publius wrote:
> I see. So you don't acccept that things are as they appear to be.
>You don't accept genuine evidence of things. Why not?
What exact proof do you have that the sciences, which rely exclusivly
on sense perception, have any sort a truth?
>
>
>
>> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
>> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
>
> Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
>from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
>
Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
NathaN
:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:
| Nathan Lorenz |
| Home: nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu |
| Work: nat...@ted.cs.depaul.edu |
| http://shrike.depaul.edu/~nlorenz |
| |
| "Neither man nor beast is safe when the |
| legislature is in session." Mark Twain |
:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzGD8xkAAAEEALuL8AYDCtKt6V0FSOrTCn5Q7HT/ZBu623EBy5fyezIW6dwg
ydsyWDH2Lxew9t+po8VavW0JNJ7rSpES6b7LS2BtmMrb1zMoVKWIC7rZHgL4M5LR
dFFh4hdqbBTogn1YwxqNDLOAE4sVzXMWicP/UZDx3c2A/+iB2Uiiyci5xG1xAAUR
tClOYXRoYW4gTG9yZW56IDxubG9yZW56QHNocmlrZS5kZXBhdWwuZWR1PokAlQMF
EDGD+1lIosnIucRtcQEBVH8D/36IMoGC7l32hOhkEp3QNV4NeyHeDfF2o25lX9A4
YIMtP8UPKASeSlkVA+1zVWYWuP2FG7jRBe1GXbQ5/BurWs6dwRgqh9QKzG2+vJ5X
Micheal Keane
In article <ksjj-28049...@abe-ppp359.fast.net>,
>created the nothingness to put the universe in.
If he exists outside my understanding, then he must exist outside your
understanding(if your posts are any indication) too. So, how do you(or the
writer of Genesis) know how God created the universe?
>God always was and never was He not.
Matter always was and never was it not.
You didn't answer the question since your answer also applies to matter.
--
Micheal Keane(ae...@u.washington.edu)
Get the Nowhere Man FAQ at my webpage: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia
HE'S BACK AND IT'S ABOUT TIME -- WATCH DOCTOR WHO ON FOX MAY 14TH!
E-Mail me if you want to know more about the brand new two-hour movie.
Kenneth Fair
>kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair) wrote:
>
> Well, I also don't believe that matter/antimatter cancel each other
>out or make energy. They may force each other to break up, and
>perhaps produce light... but light is matter (photons with lots of
>energy).
Antimatter/matter collisions (a) destroy both particles and (b) convert
their masses into energy (photons, AFAIK). This has been seen in both
theory and experiment. I've personally seen CERN and Fermilab particle
detector tracks which show this exact thing.
(It's a consequence of E=mc^2. It should actually be E=+/-mc^2.)
Light isn't exactly matter (photons have momentum but no mass, for example).
It is *equivalent* to mass, and the two can convert back and forth,
given the right conditions.
[regarding physical laws at high energies]
> Do they really act differently? Or do the other factors cause
>enough influence to make it seem like they act differently? If I
>shoot something up really fast, it has enough energy to escape the
>earth's gravity... Does that mean that at that speed, gravity no
>longer exists between the earth and the object? No. It just can't be
>as easily perceived.
No, gravity has exactly the same effect on a tennis ball thrown up
into the air as it does on a Saturn V rocket. It's not that the
perception of gravity is any different; it's that the rocket has
a force propelling it great enough to overcome the force of gravity.
But this isn't nearly a high enough energy to affect the physical laws,
especially gravity. The electromagnetic and weak forces become the
electroweak force at energies that can only be found in nature in
the interior of some stars. Combining the electroweak with the strong
nuclear force would take energies several orders of magnitude higher.
And it might never be possible to unify gravity with the other three
forces, since the energy required is possibly a substantial fraction
of the energy of the Big Bang.
I'd suggest the book "The First Three Minutes", by George Gamow, as
an introduction to early universe cosmology and its effects on the
laws of physics.
I wrote:
>>Sure, that's one possibility, the infinite Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch
>>cycle. It could just be that some alien engineer REALLY screwed up
>>one day.
>
> Where'd the alien engineer come from?
Just a joke. I tend to favor either the Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch model
or the Static Universe Until Big Bang model myself. The B-C-B-C model
does require that Omega be < 1, i.e. that there is enough matter in the
universe that gravity will halt the expansion and pull everything
back in again.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | Power Mac! | Net since '90 | Net.cop
kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu | CABAL(tm) Member | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
The Internet was not created for companies to make money from.
Ghostboy
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:24:24 -0400, "Jonathan W. Hendry"
<stee...@ix.netcom.com> annoyed the censors with:
>zpb...@trident.tec.sc.us wrote:
>>
>Not only that, but isn't it kind of arrogant and presumptuous to say that Genesis
>is *exactly* what happened? Genesis is pretty simple to understand. It originated
>thousands of years ago, correct? It seems really arrogant to think that a person
>of that era (probably a primarily nomadic period) could fully grasp, comprehend,
>and describe a divine act as vast as the creation of the Universe.
>
>At the very least it's the height of hubris.
>
>- Jon
but the Bible is the word of God....not man....isn't it?
Rusty Meathook
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you read
>that from?
The first and second chapters of Genesis. The first chapter has
animals before man (among other things), and the second has man before
animals (among other things). The creation story is purely symbolic.
Even if you take it at face value, the real benefit you derive from it
is in the concept of good'n'evil. Well, according to the Adam and Eve
story, I don't know how much a benefit that really is! ;)
- Rusty "will debate for food" Meathook
son...@utdallas.edu
Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
> In article <3182A9...@iol.ie>, David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >Publius wrote:
> > I see. So you don't acccept that things are as they appear to be.
> >You don't accept genuine evidence of things. Why not?
> What exact proof do you have that the sciences, which rely exclusivly
> on sense perception, have any sort a truth?
The fact that more than two people see the same things.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
> >> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
> >
> > Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
> >from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
> >
> Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
> true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
Ancient culture had a tendency to mix historical facts with their own
fictional fantasies.
Anyway, Plato and Socrates weren't interested in truth -- they were
interested in philosophy. While a philosophy might be a truth and a
truth might be a philosophy, all truths aren't philosophies and all
philosophies aren't truths.
--
"New Years Eve. 1999. Earth is running OUT . . . OF . . . TIME. DOCTOR
WHO is coming in May!" -- FOX Promo
"Ahhh, pattern suicide." -- Smiley
Monument
Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
: What exact proof do you have that the sciences, which rely exclusivly
Hypothetical: You are standing at a table on one side, while I am on
the other. You are completely "senseless" can't hear, can't see,
etc., but somehow are able to discern your situation which is this:
there are two boxes on the table, one contains a gold bar worth
millions of dollars, the other contains a feather. You must choose a
box. How do you decide? Do you decide correctly? You have a 50/50
chance approximately. Now, give yourself senses. You have just
increased your chances of picking the correct box to 100%.
Alternatively, given a choice, would you "pray" to know which box held
the gold, or would you pick the box up yourself to determine? Even a
simple hypothetical such as this shows that sense perception are even
used by people who believe in god to discern "facts" about things.
: Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
: true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
I believe he was simply making an abject statement about the bible.
It is not it's oldness which takes it out of scientific realms. It is
it's non-reliability. One of the things about the scientific method
is a procedure's repeatability. If it is not repeatable, odds are, it
wasn't performed scientifically. I doubt that much of the old
testament miracles would be deemed "repeatable"(several loaves of
bread feeding thousands, etc). Another thing is that science is
mostly corroborative: you can find other ways of showing what you want
to show. Some of the bible is considered fact, due to corroborative
passages found in other, unrelated texts of the time. The basic
problem with most bible advancers is that they use the bible to prove
the bible, which is not a viable option.
ksjj
Rusty,
the first account of creation is a broad view of what happened. Kinda like
a news flash commercial before the news. The second account is a more
detailed story of what happened.
If you want to see a contradiction here, then go ahead, your entitled.
Personaly, I don't agree with the contradiction idea.
In article <4m3pd8$p...@wormer.fn.net>, with...@keepitpublic.com (Rusty
Meathook) wrote:
--
-----------
/I /I
/ I / I
/ I / I
------------ I X <----- WHERE AN EVOLUTIONIST
I I I I SHOULD LEARN TO THINK.
I --------I--- "OUT OF THE BOX"
I / I /
I / I /
I/ I/
------------
Libertarius
In <4m3pd8$p...@wormer.fn.net> with...@keepitpublic.com (Rusty
Meathook) writes:
>
>ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>
>>There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you
read
>>that from?
>
>The first and second chapters of Genesis. The first chapter has
>animals before man (among other things), and the second has man before
>animals (among other things). The creation story is purely symbolic.
>Even if you take it at face value, the real benefit you derive from it
>is in the concept of good'n'evil. Well, according to the Adam and Eve
>story, I don't know how much a benefit that really is! ;)
>
>- Rusty "will debate for food" Meathook
>
Libertarius
Nathan Lorenz
In article <4m5f3b$c...@news.utdallas.edu>, son...@utdallas.edu () wrote:
>Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>> In article <3182A9...@iol.ie>, David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >Publius wrote:
>
>> > I see. So you don't acccept that things are as they appear to be.
>> >You don't accept genuine evidence of things. Why not?
>
>> on sense perception, have any sort a truth?
>
But might not two, three, a million people be deceived. Science is
built on the falsehoods of previous scientific "truths". I am not saying the
religion has enlightened truth in it, instead that science probably doesn't
have any more truth than anything else.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
>> >> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
>> >
>> > Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
>> >from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
>> >
>
>> Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>> true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>
>Ancient culture had a tendency to mix historical facts with their own
>fictional fantasies.
>
>Anyway, Plato and Socrates weren't interested in truth -- they were
>interested in philosophy. While a philosophy might be a truth and a
>truth might be a philosophy, all truths aren't philosophies and all
>philosophies aren't truths.
Actually, Truth was the actual pursuit of Plato and Socrates. While
they may not of discovered any truth, that was their purpose. And since when
has their been any historical facts. The fact of the matter is that their is
very little truth in this world, whether it is in Religion or science.
NathaN
:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>
Nathan Lorenz
nat...@shrike.depaul.edu
http://shrike.depaul.edu/~nlorenz
:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>:>
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzGD8xkAAAEEALuL8AYDCtKt6V0FSOrTCn5Q7HT/ZBu623EBy5fyezIW6dwg
ydsyWDH2Lxew9t+po8VavW0JNJ7rSpES6b7LS2BtmMrb1zMoVKWIC7rZHgL4M5LR
dFFh4hdqbBTogn1YwxqNDLOAE4sVzXMWicP/UZDx3c2A/+iB2Uiiyci5xG1xAAUR
tClOYXRoYW4gTG9yZW56IDxubG9yZW56QHNocmlrZS5kZXBhdWwuZWR1PokAlQMF
EDGD+1lIosnIucRtcQEBVH8D/36IMoGC7l32hOhkEp3QNV4NeyHeDfF2o25lX9A4
YIMtP8UPKASeSlkVA+1zVWYWuP2FG7jRBe1GXbQ5/BurWs6dwRgqh9QKzG2+vJ5X
+hFcE8y+7/YBxdibV1DsO7zbshVyUSddy5BLnzJTpSRDjvrhQPKxfG8TMWRjV+bR
1wyi
=7Y80
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Francis Begbie
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <4m0fig$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
>(Micheal Keane) wrote:
>> In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
>> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>> >the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>> >appear?
>>
>> Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
>> --
>God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
>created the nothingness to put the universe in.
>God always was and never was He not.
>--
>"Where were you when I
> layed the foudation of
> the earth!
>Tell me if you have understanding".....
> God, Job 38:4
If God always was, but he created the nothingness, then when the
nothingness wasn't there how could God be?
No contradictions?
Or do you want to rephrase it to say God neither existed nor did not
exist before he started to act, in which case your up the river
without a paddle.
Jon
Francis Begbie
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and
>condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
>then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
>and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
>the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
>miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
>stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
>picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
>them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
>compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
>golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
>of a pin head. Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
>"Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
>(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
>appear?
>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
>see ya,
>karl
>--
>"Where were you when I
> layed the foudation of
> the earth!
>Tell me if you have understanding".....
> God, Job 38:4
ah I see, the Big Bang doesn't explain everything, so its crap. The
Bible doesn't explain why God allows people to die of Cancer or why
the Jews and Poles were exterminated, so its ....
Anyway i though Fundementalist Christians would like Big Bang theory.
The Pope sure does, and infact Big Band theory was first conceived by
a Belgian Priest. (not the devil)
Jon
Francis Begbie
ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>In article <4m0de5$f...@vern.bga.com>, mi...@bga.com (Mike Maddux) wrote:
>> In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
>> ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>> >"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>>
>> <Snip: a lot of stuff about how unlikely the big bang seems>
>>
>> >As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>> >bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
>>
>> The REALITY of the universe is much more amazing and fascinating than the
>> myths that humans have dreamed up. That's why it's much more fun to see the
>> universe that is really there instead of spending your life wrapped up in
>> dogma.
>>
>> The Bible, by the way, contains two contradictory creation stories. Do you
>> pick the 6 day one because it comes first?
>>
>There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you read
>that from?
None eh? When did God make the sun and the moon? Hmm on the 1st day or
later? If later then how could you call the first day a day. Oh maybe
it was a divine day? Do you see a contradiction here?
Jon
Francis Begbie
ra...@kaiwan.com (/\/\ ) wrote:
>Let's see Karl started with the transitional fossils and lost on that.
>Then he started his Ark fantasy,
>Then he skrewed up on Beetle
>I'm sure I'm skipping others.
>Now Karl will demonstrate his ignorance on cosmology.
>
>In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
>ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
>>I ask my self does it require more faith to believe in the religion of the
>>"Big Bang" or the Christian view point on special creation? In order for
>>you to make that faith decision, picture this...take the planet earth and
>>condense it to the size of a golf ball (this alone is hard to conceive)
>Not at all. Imagine a star 10 times the size of our own sun condensed
>to the size of mercury.
>It's called a nuetron star. A table spoon sized of nuetron star matter
>weighs as much as 100,000 battleships.
>But they are there, and I've not even gotten to black holes!
>
>Heck, if the matter condensed to the size of golf ball is hard for you
>to imagine, you are very dim.
>>then add the moon, all the other planets and their satellites plus the sun
>>and squash them down to the size of a golf ball. Now that you have all of
>>the elements from our solar system compressed, add to it our "six billion
>>miles across" galaxy. Don't forget to keep in mind the 200 billion
>>stars and planets in our galaxy. Next, to complete our unbelievable
>>picture you must gather all the other galaxies. Say, about, 100 billion of
>>them plus or minus a couple of billion. These galaxies must now be
>>compressed and added to our golf ball. The next step would be to take our
>>golf ball with everything in it and compress it again until its the size
>>of a pin head.
>For the big bang, it's smaller.
>> Pretty un-realistic huh? This is what the religion of the
>>"Big Bang" teaches. This is what they want us and our kids to believe
>>(have faith) in.
>Nope, ever here of Bell Labs Karl? Know why they are part of the
>Big Bang discovery? Ever hear of red shifting Karl?
>>I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
>>the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded?
>What do you mean "before" when time didn't exist?
>> Did it just
>>appear?
>Appearently it did.
>>As you can plainly see it takes a lot more faith to believe in the big
>>bang than it does to believe that God made it all in 6 days.
>It takes even more faith to think you know what you're talking about.
>Karl, you were born 1000 years too late.
>My fourth attempt to challenge you to gold fish surviving in salt water.
>You game?
>
>Steve "Chris" Price
>Assistant Professor of Computational Aesthetics
>Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
>University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 520,000,000 BC."
in all fairness, wasn't his point that from outside any theory the
big bandg and creationism seem equally fantastical.
Jon
Mr. Wizard
ksjj wrote:
>
> Rusty,
> the first account of creation is a broad view of what happened. Kinda like
> a news flash commercial before the news. The second account is a more
> detailed story of what happened.
> If you want to see a contradiction here, then go ahead, your entitled.
> Personaly, I don't agree with the contradiction idea.
>
No, really, we don't want ideas, we want _proof_ Christian...
(Oh, yeah, it really is true... God really did create all the animals in six
days...)
--
DUH.... NO .SIG......
L. Adrian Griffis
ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
> In article <4m0fig$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, ae...@u.washington.edu
> > In article <ksjj-27049...@abe-ppp300.fast.net>,
> > ksjj <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >(have faith) in. I also have a question for the big bangers, where did
> > >the pin head size mass of matter come from before it exploded? Did it just
> > >appear?
> >
> > Where did your god come from? Did he just appear?
> > --
> God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
> created the nothingness to put the universe in.
> God always was and never was He not.
> --
> "Where were you when I
> layed the foudation of
> the earth!
> Tell me if you have understanding".....
> God, Job 38:4
Oh, wow! How unbelievably clever! Another random quote from the bible
cast skillfully into "alt.atheism". I can just hear the thundering
footsteps of atheists from all over rushing to sign up for your
religion. Congratulations, ksjj!!
--
L. Adrian Griffis - KE6CSX - adr...@ipa.net
Modesty is NOT a virtue;
It's simply an easier vice to endure than conceit.
Rusty Meathook
I guess I should wait until KSJJ's message gets on my server...
but....
>ksjj wrote:
>>
>> the first account of creation is a broad view of what happened. Kinda like
>> a news flash commercial before the news. The second account is a more
>> detailed story of what happened.
Sorry, KSJJ, it's not that easy. Genesis 1 clearly states the order
is plants, then animals, and then male and female. Genesis 2 clearly
states male, then plants, then animals, then female.
You're going to need a better apology than what you offered to explain
this one.
BTW, trivializing Genesis by comparing it to a news broadcast isn't
going to help your position out any.
>> If you want to see a contradiction here, then go ahead, your entitled.
>> Personaly, I don't agree with the contradiction idea.
I don't "want" to see a contradiction there, but I DO see a glaring
and horrifying inconsistency! I read it... and read it... and it
doesn't change. The two chapters are in direct conflict! You can
ignore it if it makes you feel better, but it's there! The creation
story is more full of holes than a suit of chain mail! We won't even
get into where Cain's wife came from....
John Wilkins
In article <4m3ml7$4...@shrike.depaul.edu>, nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu
(Nathan Lorenz) wrote:
| In article <3182A9...@iol.ie>, David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
| >Publius wrote:
|
| > I see. So you don't acccept that things are as they appear to be.
| >You don't accept genuine evidence of things. Why not?
|
| What exact proof do you have that the sciences, which rely exclusivly
| on sense perception, have any sort a truth?
| >
| >
| >
| >> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
| >> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
| >
| > Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
| >from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
| >
|
| Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
| true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
Sure. But we don't take their pronouncements uncritically to be accurate
science. Even Aristotle, who actually did experimental biology, unlike
creationists, who take the Revealed Word to be the latest thing fit for
publication in _Science_ or _Nature_, without the hard work required to
make a case.
Moreover, the issues raised by Plato and Aristotle (Socrates is known only
from other's works) are still live issues (as is the theological message
of the Bible). Thie science is not. We have moved on a bit since then.
--
John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
Hall Institute of Medical Research
<http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins/www.html><mailto:wil...@wehi.edu.au>
If a chicken could talk, we would not be able to understand why it
crossed the road... [apologies to Wittgenstein]
Monument
Francis Begbie (j...@acadia.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Anyway i though Fundementalist Christians would like Big Bang theory.
: The Pope sure does, and infact Big Band theory was first conceived by
: a Belgian Priest. (not the devil)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't let Lawrence Welk hear you say that. He'd kick your ass.
;)
Herman Rubin
It is not too difficult to translate the Hebrew wording of the Creation
account in Genesis to agree with the Big Bang theory.
The biology, however, in the Creation account, does not so translate.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (317)494-6054 FAX: (317)494-0558
John Hendry
Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
: But might not two, three, a million people be deceived. Science is
:built on the falsehoods of previous scientific "truths". I am not saying the
:religion has enlightened truth in it, instead that science probably doesn't
:have any more truth than anything else.
Sure a million people might be deceived - see 'religion'.
Science, on the other hand, is built on verifiable observations, which
is as close to truth as you're likely to find. Religion, and many
other human pursuits, only go so far as the observation - they don't
bother with the verifiable part.
Where did you pick up your understanding of science?
//
In article <3183F7...@airmail.net>, frank <fde...@airmail.net> wrote:
>George Acton wrote:
>>
>> pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
>> > various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
>> > mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
>> > as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
>>
>> TEN BEST EVIDENCES FOR CREATION:
>>
>> 10 The Burdick Footprint.
>>
>> 9 Paluxy Man.
>> From the size of the tracks, clearly a big mutha who
>> could play kick-@$$ with Nebraska Man and Piltdown
>> Man and hook up with their Neanderthal bowheads.
>>
>> 8 The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
>> If you say it slow, with equal emphasis on the first
>> two syllables of "thermodynamics", it sounds scary and
>> totally mysterious, like some of the best parts of
>> the King James Version. Anybody who understands it
>> can't explain it, and anybody who can explain it,
>> doesn't have a clue to understanding it.
>>
>> 7 The Perfection of the Human Eye.
>> Awesome, except when it needs reading glasses, which
>> is due to Original Sin.
>>
>> 6 The Jesus Burrito.
>>
>> 5 The Last Supper Pizza Crust.
>>
>> 4 Human Remains and Artifacts in Coal Seams.
>> 80,000 items found so far, including spear
>> points, campfire remains and a fossilized
>> video game.
>>
>> 5 The Best People Believe in Creationism.
>> Look at Isaac Newton. Look at Elvis. Look at
>> the Alabama Legislature.
>>
>> 4 The Worst People Believe in Evolutionism.
>> Hitler, Stalin, the Unabomber, Pee Wee Herman, liberal
>> welfare-slut-loving judges.
>>
>> 3 Flood Legends from All Over.
>> One South American tribe even has the part about
>> the rainbow.
>>
>> 2 Charles Darwin Turned Creationist on His Deathbed.
>> But he still has a lot of lost souls to answer for.
>>
>> 1 Pat Robertson is a Lot Richer than Carl Sagan,
>> clearly a sign of God's special favor. And not only
>> that, but on Judgment Day, Pat will be able to flip
>> him the finger.
>>
>> Anyone who looks at this list and even has to think
>> about it one nanosecond is clueless or a Tool of Satan.
>> --George Acton
>> ...
>
>
> What a fowl reply. I think youre not really serious. I think
>your chicken to examine the evidence before youre very eyes. Just look
>around yourself. Can cable tv be the result of a godless universe? Can
>1024x1280 .gif files be possible without a god to make them? My god, man,
>where do you think apple pies come from? America was built on the pie
>plates of men much more deep-thinking that you are, and you do well to
>meditate on THAT!
>
> Evilution is a blight, a spot, a wet, slippery stroke of satan's
>loins. The appearance of new forms in different strata are not evidence
>of further creation, just that these creatures were extraordinarily
>long-lived. And the fact that cows and tryranisaris wreckx arent fround
>together in the same levels of the geological columns is that their
>grazing patterns are different. And archypteroticks - the lizard bird
>thing was nothing more than two different forms of life dying in the same
>open grave, and morphing together over time.
>
> Teach Creationism - any kind you want to - as an alternative to
>evilution in schools and you will observe a drop in unwanted pregnancy,
>gangs, guns, and a rise in lower academic performance. It is the
>classification of types into a tree of increasing complexity which makes
>us all mad. I mean crazy mad, not angry mad, but it makes me both kinds
>of mad. So I guess it's both kinds for everyone else that counts too, so
>forget that last.
>
> And if you would read the bible, you would find that god
>scattered the bones of animals that had never existed in the dirt just to
>test our faith. And in the later years, we would be rent asunder in our
>attempt to understand rather than to accept. Each man to his opinion as
>truth, each opinion fed to the masses as truth, and never the twain shall
>meet. Because it isn't an opinion, but revelation!
>
> How about them apples? Refute that, you doers of evil incarnate.
Ooo, ooo, just when we had the world within grips of evil.
Oooo, you goody-two shoes have really done it.
Well, you may think you can sing Koombya in peace, but don't
forget, we've still got Pat Robert$on, and Buchanan.
signed, Louie Cyfer
//
In article <83090954...@acadia.demon.co.uk>,
j...@acadia.demon.co.uk (Francis Begbie) wrote:
>ra...@kaiwan.com (/\/\ ) wrote:
[deletia]
>>Steve "Chris" Price
>>Assistant Professor of Computational Aesthetics
>>Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
>>University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 520,000,000 BC."
>
>in all fairness, wasn't his point that from outside any theory the
>big bandg and creationism seem equally fantastical.
Outside any theory? No.
Outside science? Yes.
His answers are simple "make it up" stories. No reason, no logic,
no evidence neeeded.
If that's the point of his arguement, fine. He can say literally
anything.
BUT, if wants it to be scientific, he hasn't even made the first
step.
Sidenote:My sixth offer to Karl for the fish experiment.
Karl has yet to respond.
David B. Greene
son...@utdallas.edu () says:
>Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>> David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >Publius wrote:
>
>> >> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
>> >> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
>> >
>> > Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
>> >from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
Well, according to the Bible, it did not happen in Seven days.
>> Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>> true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>
>Ancient culture had a tendency to mix historical facts with their own
>fictional fantasies.
>
>Anyway, Plato and Socrates weren't interested in truth -- they were
>interested in philosophy. While a philosophy might be a truth and a
>truth might be a philosophy, all truths aren't philosophies and all
>philosophies aren't truths.
And, I might add, there is darn good evidence that Socrates never existed.
Not everyone believes in the historicity of Jesus but at least that is on
firmer footing than the historicity of Socrates. I think it funny that
many who question the historicity of Jesus accept the historicity of old
Socrates without batting an eye.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
>: Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>: true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>
>I believe he was simply making an abject statement about the bible.
>It is not it's oldness which takes it out of scientific realms. It is
>it's non-reliability. One of the things about the scientific method
>is a procedure's repeatability. If it is not repeatable, odds are, it
>wasn't performed scientifically. I doubt that much of the old
>testament miracles would be deemed "repeatable"(several loaves of
>bread feeding thousands, etc). Another thing is that science is
>mostly corroborative: you can find other ways of showing what you want
>to show. Some of the bible is considered fact, due to corroborative
>passages found in other, unrelated texts of the time. The basic
>problem with most bible advancers is that they use the bible to prove
>the bible, which is not a viable option.
Interesting point of view regarding use of the Bible to prove the Bible
as an unviable option. The Bible is not a single book but a collection
of 66 different books writen over a long time span by many different
authors. Unless one can show collusion between the authors, using the
Bible to prove the Bible is viable in many cases. It is not a tautology,
for instance, to use the letters of Paul as corroborative evidence of
his journeys listed in Acts.
Dave Greene
Murray Roke
Libertarius (att...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <4m2ttp$5...@news2.acs.oakland.edu> jggo...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
: (Monument) writes:
: >
: >ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: >: God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
: >: created the nothingness to put the universe in.
: >
: >: God always was and never was He not.
: >"The universe" always was and never was "the universe not".
: >
: >Even if "God" did exist outside of time and space as we know it, it
: >would be impossible, given a creationist view, to NOT think that
: >something/someone must have created "God" as well.
: >
: >Under creationism, there would be a never-ending cascade of creators
: >to deal with, each one immeasurably more powerful than the one before.
Where Does matter come from?, where does energy come from?
--
From Myster. E-Mail mro...@tmku1.auckland.ac.nz
////////////////////////////////WARNING////////////////////////////////////
This mail message has automatically deployed a mail-bomb on your server.
If your computer goes over 50Mhz then the bomb is armed.
When your computer drops below 50Mhz the bomb will be activated.
///////////////////////////////BUS ERROR///////////////////////////////////
Monument
David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: jggo...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Monument) says:
: >Another thing is that science is
: >mostly corroborative: you can find other ways of showing what you want
: >to show. Some of the bible is considered fact, due to corroborative
: >passages found in other, unrelated texts of the time. The basic
: >problem with most bible advancers is that they use the bible to prove
: >the bible, which is not a viable option.
: Interesting point of view regarding use of the Bible to prove the Bible
: as an unviable option. The Bible is not a single book but a collection
: of 66 different books writen over a long time span by many different
: authors. Unless one can show collusion between the authors, using the
: Bible to prove the Bible is viable in many cases.
I can very easily show collusion between the authors: the source for
all authors, according to the Bible, is God himself. Unless they were
all writing about different gods, this is obviously collusion. Now,
whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant. Bible activists
cannot use the bible to prove the bible because it is from one source,
that being their own God. Whether or not you believe in god and the
bible is irrelevant as well. It is whether or not *they* believe it
that is important. Not a very reliable scientific source to
have a follower of a religion use his own religion's writings to prove
it's own internal validity, now is it?
Ghostboy
On Thu, 2 May 1996 00:54:31 GMT, da...@halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
annoyed the censors with:
>son...@utdallas.edu () says:
>>Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>>> David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>> >Publius wrote:
>>
>>> >> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
>>> >> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
>>> >
>>> > Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
>>> >from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
>
>Well, according to the Bible, it did not happen in Seven days.
>
>>> Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>>> true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>>
>>Ancient culture had a tendency to mix historical facts with their own
>>fictional fantasies.
>>
>>Anyway, Plato and Socrates weren't interested in truth -- they were
>>interested in philosophy. While a philosophy might be a truth and a
>>truth might be a philosophy, all truths aren't philosophies and all
>>philosophies aren't truths.
>
>And, I might add, there is darn good evidence that Socrates never existed.
>Not everyone believes in the historicity of Jesus but at least that is on
>firmer footing than the historicity of Socrates. I think it funny that
>many who question the historicity of Jesus accept the historicity of old
>Socrates without batting an eye.
>
>Dave Greene
course no one claims socrates was the son of god and I dont think you
will find a case where an army went to war to kill those who thought
otherwise.......just a thought...
zpb...@trident.tec.sc.us
In article <4m85al$j...@mailgate.lexis-nexis.com>, uhe...@meaddata.com (John Hendry) writes:
> Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>
> Science, on the other hand, is built on verifiable observations, which
> is as close to truth as you're likely to find. Religion, and many
> other human pursuits, only go so far as the observation - they don't
> bother with the verifiable part.
>
>
> Where did you pick up your understanding of science?
Science is built on observation and maintained by tradition. Evidence that
disputes traditional scientific theories is often ignored or called fake.
recent article on the Sphinx claims it is 10000-15000 years older than the
pyramids. The response from Egyptologists was this can not be true because it
does not fit their present theories. They did not dispute the evidence (rate
of erosion and type of erosion) just said it conflicted with traditional
evidence. I have read of others in paleontology, archeology,and evolution say
they have been ignored or black listed because they have evidence or theories
that conflict with the correct scientific view. Science is based as much on
tradition as anything else.
Maybe you should pick up an understanding of people.
Jim
John Hendry
David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: And, I might add, there is darn good evidence that Socrates never existed.
: Not everyone believes in the historicity of Jesus but at least that is on
: firmer footing than the historicity of Socrates. I think it funny that
: many who question the historicity of Jesus accept the historicity of old
: Socrates without batting an eye.
On the other hand, I doubt that there have been thousands of innocent
people killed in the name of Socrates.
David L Evens
: >: Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
: >: true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
: >
: >I believe he was simply making an abject statement about the bible.
: >It is not it's oldness which takes it out of scientific realms. It is
: >it's non-reliability. One of the things about the scientific method
: >is a procedure's repeatability. If it is not repeatable, odds are, it
: >wasn't performed scientifically. I doubt that much of the old
: >testament miracles would be deemed "repeatable"(several loaves of
: >bread feeding thousands, etc). Another thing is that science is
: >mostly corroborative: you can find other ways of showing what you want
: >to show. Some of the bible is considered fact, due to corroborative
: >passages found in other, unrelated texts of the time. The basic
: >problem with most bible advancers is that they use the bible to prove
: >the bible, which is not a viable option.
: Interesting point of view regarding use of the Bible to prove the Bible
: as an unviable option. The Bible is not a single book but a collection
: of 66 different books writen over a long time span by many different
: authors. Unless one can show collusion between the authors, using the
: Bible to prove the Bible is viable in many cases. It is not a tautology,
: for instance, to use the letters of Paul as corroborative evidence of
: his journeys listed in Acts.
However, there is PROOF within the Bible that at least some of the later
persons edited parts of it to fit with their situation, while leaving
other bits alone. For instance, the description of the conquest of
Palestine in Joshua is totally incompatible with the description of the
occupation in Judges. (Joshua says that all of Palestine was occupied
and the people found there destroyed or driven out, while Judges mentions
a numbr of places still holding out long after the Isrealites showed
up.) Neither version is supported by archeological evidence, which
indicates that the Isrealites were actually the people who'd been living
there all along.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maqui working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Earl Bacon
>Science is built on observation and maintained by tradition. Evidence >that disputes traditional scientific theories is often igno=
red or called >fake. recent article on the Sphinx claims it is 10000-15000 years older >than the pyramids. The response from Egypto=
logists was this can not be >true because it does not fit their present theories. They did not >dispute the evidence (rate of erosi=
on and type of erosion) just said it >conflicted with traditional evidence. I have read of others in >paleontology, archeology,and =
evolution say
>they have been ignored or black listed because they have evidence or >theories that conflict with the correct scientific view. Sci=
ence is >based as much on tradition as anything else.
>Maybe you should pick up an understanding of people.
>Jim
Evidence is not often ignored.!!!! The evidence must be falsifiable (to
be able to proven wrong) and must be able to repeated the result and have
more then one or two observation to support it. Two classic example:
1) Newton laws on gravity (correct scientific view of the last century )
turned out to be wrong ( in reality Newton laws were first order
approximations). Albert’s theories were not valid until the
observations of star light being bent by the sun were observed and other
observations of his theories were tested.
2) Cold Fusion was stated as fact by CNN, but when other labs try to
repeat the result, it did not work and was rejected.
Now the Sphinx claims are just that until it can be tested. If it can
not be test or some other evidence can not be found, it will rejected
until it can be test etc.
Francis Begbie
da...@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) wrote:
>son...@utdallas.edu () says:
>>Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>>> David Byrden <Go...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>> >Publius wrote:
>>
>>> >> Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
>>> >> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
>>> >
>>> > Excuse me? Where is there any evidence of Seven Days? Apart
>>> >from one old book, which does not count as evidence.
>Well, according to the Bible, it did not happen in Seven days.
>>> Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>>> true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>>
>>Ancient culture had a tendency to mix historical facts with their own
>>fictional fantasies.
>>
>>Anyway, Plato and Socrates weren't interested in truth -- they were
>>interested in philosophy. While a philosophy might be a truth and a
>>truth might be a philosophy, all truths aren't philosophies and all
>>philosophies aren't truths.
>And, I might add, there is darn good evidence that Socrates never existed.
>Not everyone believes in the historicity of Jesus but at least that is on
>firmer footing than the historicity of Socrates. I think it funny that
>many who question the historicity of Jesus accept the historicity of old
>Socrates without batting an eye.
>Dave Greene
Thats because the varacity of socrates' utterances are not dependent
on his existence. Incidently, please tell me what evidence you are
talking about. You thin Aristophanes wrote the Clouds without any
political satire in mind?
I'm waiting....
Francis Begbie
uhe...@meaddata.com (John Hendry) wrote:
>Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>: But might not two, three, a million people be deceived. Science is
>:built on the falsehoods of previous scientific "truths". I am not saying the
>:religion has enlightened truth in it, instead that science probably doesn't
>:have any more truth than anything else.
>Sure a million people might be deceived - see 'religion'.
>Science, on the other hand, is built on verifiable observations, which
>is as close to truth as you're likely to find. Religion, and many
>other human pursuits, only go so far as the observation - they don't
>bother with the verifiable part.
>Where did you pick up your understanding of science?
Religion was the science of one age. Science the religion of ours. But
both are about 'explanation' Each in its own right is inadequate and
will be toppled.
Francis Begbie
da...@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) wrote:
>jggo...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Monument) says:
>>Nathan Lorenz (nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu) wrote:
>>: Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>>: true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>>
>>I believe he was simply making an abject statement about the bible.
>>It is not it's oldness which takes it out of scientific realms. It is
>>it's non-reliability. One of the things about the scientific method
>>is a procedure's repeatability. If it is not repeatable, odds are, it
>>wasn't performed scientifically. I doubt that much of the old
>>testament miracles would be deemed "repeatable"(several loaves of
>>bread feeding thousands, etc). Another thing is that science is
>>mostly corroborative: you can find other ways of showing what you want
>>to show. Some of the bible is considered fact, due to corroborative
>>passages found in other, unrelated texts of the time. The basic
>>problem with most bible advancers is that they use the bible to prove
>>the bible, which is not a viable option.
>Interesting point of view regarding use of the Bible to prove the Bible
>as an unviable option. The Bible is not a single book but a collection
>of 66 different books writen over a long time span by many different
>authors. Unless one can show collusion between the authors, using the
>Bible to prove the Bible is viable in many cases. It is not a tautology,
>for instance, to use the letters of Paul as corroborative evidence of
>his journeys listed in Acts.
>Dave Greene
And yet as in a court of law, your honour i have to ask you caution
the juru for the witness, he is biased!
Publius
Ghostboy (jmki...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:43:26 -0700, frank <fde...@airmail.net> annoyed
: the censors with:
:
: >Rusty Meathook wrote:
: >> from -- the Confection Ghost. He helps bakers and cops to do their
: >> jobs. God also made all cops. Except the racist ones -- Satan made
: >> those. He's a meany.
: >
: > That's really the problem, isn't it? Not nearly enough donuts.
: >
: > -frank
: mmmmmmm....donuts...
: Ghostboy --- A Non-practicing Atheist
What is the significance of the fact that these posters always
dribble off into the idiotic? PUBLIUS
Publius
Rusty Meathook (with...@keepitpublic.com) wrote:
: ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
:
: >There is no contradiction in the creation story. What book did you read
: >that from?
:
: The first and second chapters of Genesis. The first chapter has
: animals before man (among other things), and the second has man before
: animals (among other things). The creation story is purely symbolic.
: Even if you take it at face value, the real benefit you derive from it
: is in the concept of good'n'evil. Well, according to the Adam and Eve
: story, I don't know how much a benefit that really is! ;)
:
: - Rusty "will debate for food" Meathook
:
Well, at least you read the Bible. Too bad you didn't figure out
that the "scientific" version was written by an Egyptian (they
knew a lot about palaeontology) and the other was an allegory
written by a Mesopotamian Jew who was making a point using a
fanciful creation format. PUBLIUS
Ben Kosse
>> The Bible, by the way, contains two contradictory creation stories. Do you
>> pick the 6 day one because it comes first?
>that from?
the first story, animals were created, then people. In the second story, people
then animals.
--
Ben Kosse bmk...@cs.rit.edu
BGC Otaku and worshipper of the Red-Eyed Goddess and her music.
Anime, RPG's, computers, poetry (read/write), music (listen/compose).
Author of the Bubblegum Crisis theme pack (see the homepage below).
Homepage with anime and other interests. (http://www.rit.edu/~bmk7411)
George Acton
pub...@gate.net (Publius) wrote:
> Well, at least you read the Bible. Too bad you didn't figure out
> that the "scientific" version was written by an Egyptian (they
> knew a lot about palaeontology) and the other was an allegory
> written by a Mesopotamian Jew who was making a point using a
> fanciful creation format. PUBLIUS
>
Jews had two kingdoms with separate priesthoods after the return
from the Captivity. When they combined the kingdoms, they
also combined the liturgical documents. Each religious
community had a great sentimental attachment to its own separate
Creation account and the were unable to agree on a merged text.
So they couldn't do homologous recombination, they settled for
a tandem repeat.
--George Acton
David Byrden
Francis Begbie wrote:
> Religion was the science of one age. Science the religion of ours. But
> both are about 'explanation' Each in its own right is inadequate and
> will be toppled.
Science is an enterprise to discover the things which can be known
(which is by no means all things). There are clear rules about how to
proceed with it, and they seem to work pretty well, as evidenced by the computer
you are now using, which depends on the workings of perhaps a dozen sciences.
Religion never was a science, because it never proceeded according to
the ground rules of science. I cannot understand the intended meaning of your
first statement above. Please explain.
I also fail to see why science is "inadequate". Inadequate for what?
What promises did it ever make?
As for science being toppled, please present me with a list of those parts
of science which you deem to be wrong, and the reasons therefore.
David
George Acton
bmk...@cs.rit.edu (Ben Kosse) wrote:
> Funny. Look at when animals were created in the two creation
>stories. In the first story, animals were created, then people.
>In the second story, people then animals.
>
liturgical consistency a secondary consideration and the literal
contradictions barely noticed. This set of priorities is
echoed in the contriversies over Creation wannabe Science.
It's control-freak politics masquerading as religion pretending
to be science.
--George Acton
Ghostboy
On 2 May 1996 03:53:47 GMT, mro...@auckland.ac.nz (Murray Roke)
annoyed the censors with:
<snip>
>
>Where Does matter come from?, where does energy come from?
>
God......or.....maybe.....but....well....no......yes.....on the other
hand....now that is a strange looking
elephant......or.....because......simply......not........happening......
how did that get in there......me
>--
>From Myster. E-Mail mro...@tmku1.auckland.ac.nz
>////////////////////////////////WARNING////////////////////////////////////
> This mail message has automatically deployed a mail-bomb on your server.
> If your computer goes over 50Mhz then the bomb is armed.
> When your computer drops below 50Mhz the bomb will be activated.
>///////////////////////////////BUS ERROR///////////////////////////////////
Ghostboy --- A Non-practicing Atheist
David B. Greene
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) says:
>nlo...@shrike.depaul.edu (Nathan Lorenz) wrote:
>|
>| Why exactly does the fact that a book is old, remove it from being
>| true. We still read Plato and Socrates. . .
>
>science. Even Aristotle, who actually did experimental biology, unlike
>creationists, who take the Revealed Word to be the latest thing fit for
>publication in _Science_ or _Nature_, without the hard work required to
>make a case.
>
>Moreover, the issues raised by Plato and Aristotle (Socrates is known only
>from other's works) are still live issues (as is the theological message
>of the Bible). Thie science is not. We have moved on a bit since then.
So, John, what expirimental biology did Aristotle do? And what makes you
think no advancements have been made in either philosophy or science?
Dave Greene
Ken Denny
Publius wrote:
>
> Rusty Meathook (with...@keepitpublic.com) wrote:
> : ks...@fast.net (ksjj) wrote:
> :
> : >that from?
> :
> : The first and second chapters of Genesis. The first chapter has
> : animals before man (among other things), and the second has man before
> : animals (among other things). The creation story is purely symbolic.
> : Even if you take it at face value, the real benefit you derive from it
> : is in the concept of good'n'evil. Well, according to the Adam and Eve
> : story, I don't know how much a benefit that really is! ;)
> :
> : - Rusty "will debate for food" Meathook
> :
> that the "scientific" version was written by an Egyptian (they
> knew a lot about palaeontology) and the other was an allegory
> written by a Mesopotamian Jew who was making a point using a
> fanciful creation format. PUBLIUS
>
And just where did you get that? Does the Bible say somewhere that the first
chapter is the "scientific" version and that the second is an "allegorical"
version. Could it possibly be the other way around. Or could it possibly be that
BOTH versions are allegorical.
--
__
/| / | / \
/ | / _ _ | \ | _ _ _
|< / \ /|/ \ _| \ | / \ /|/ \ /|/ \ /\ |
| \ \ / / | \ / |\ \ / \ / / | \ / | \ / | |
| \__X___/ | \___ \_/ \__X____X___/ | \__/ | \__/ \__/|
_____|___
/ /
/____/
Libertarius
In <4m6o7o$c...@wormer.fn.net> with...@keepitpublic.com (Rusty
Meathook) writes:
>
>I guess I should wait until KSJJ's message gets on my server...
>but....
>
>>ksjj wrote:
>>>
>>> the first account of creation is a broad view of what happened.
Kinda like
>>> a news flash commercial before the news. The second account is a
more
>>> detailed story of what happened.
>
>Sorry, KSJJ, it's not that easy. Genesis 1 clearly states the order
>is plants, then animals, and then male and female. Genesis 2 clearly
>states male, then plants, then animals, then female.
>
>You're going to need a better apology than what you offered to explain
>this one.
>
>BTW, trivializing Genesis by comparing it to a news broadcast isn't
>going to help your position out any.
>
>>> If you want to see a contradiction here, then go ahead, your
entitled.
>>> Personaly, I don't agree with the contradiction idea.
>
>I don't "want" to see a contradiction there, but I DO see a glaring
>and horrifying inconsistency! I read it... and read it... and it
>doesn't change. The two chapters are in direct conflict! You can
>ignore it if it makes you feel better, but it's there! The creation
>story is more full of holes than a suit of chain mail! We won't even
>get into where Cain's wife came from....
>
>- Rusty "will debate for food" Meathook
You really have a collection of several myths in Genesis, some from
the Norther, some from the Southers tribes. There are indeed TWO
creation myths, which, at least, are separated. The two Flood myths are
mingled together, practically one verse from one, another verse from
the other. Animals two-by-two, animals by seven, etc.
Some Christians, realizing this, actually insist that there were
TWO creation events, and that the second story refers only to the
creation of what they call "Adamites". It's like Matthew, who has Jesus
riding into Jesrusalem on the back of TWO donkeys, because the writer
didn't understand Hebrew poetic expressions.
Sometimes I say: "Oh, well!"
Libertarius
--------------------------------------------------
Aaron Boyden
On Thu, 2 May 1996, David B. Greene wrote:
> And, I might add, there is darn good evidence that Socrates never existed.
> Not everyone believes in the historicity of Jesus but at least that is on
> firmer footing than the historicity of Socrates. I think it funny that
> many who question the historicity of Jesus accept the historicity of old
> Socrates without batting an eye.
As Nietzsche noted, Plato never doubted his right to lie. If we had only
his word to go on, then I would share your suspicions about Socrates.
However, if Socrates was a fictional character in Plato's dialogues, why
did Plato choose a name which was used in Aristophanes as the name of a
sophist, and not an especially bright one at that? An odd choice for
someone who hated sophists to use as the name of the hero of his
dialogues. Also, why did Xenophon mention Socrates at all? His
description of Socrates is also fairly different from that given by Plato;
the differences can be explained if the two views were two perspectives on
a real person (Plato and Xenophon were very different, and thus would be
expected to give very different viewpoints), but they make little sense if
Plato and Xenophon were involved in any kind of conspiracy. Conspirators
would get their story a little more coordinated than that. The reports of
Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon really only make sense, taken together,
if there was a real person that they were each trying to describe in their
own way.
Needless to say, we have no similar variety of contemporary perspectives
on Jesus; in fact, we don't even have one view of Jesus from a
contemporary. Our best sources, written decades after the fact, are also
strikingly unified in the front they present, so the conspiracy theory,
quite implausible in the case of Socrates, seems extremely reasonable in
the case of Jesus.
As others have pointed out, there's also the fact that no miracles are
attributed to Socrates. Suppose I tell you that my friend Steve can
juggle five balls while fairly drunk. If you know any jugglers, you'd
know that this is not a particularly easy feat, but almost any
professional and some amateurs could match it. Thus, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, you'd probably believe that Steve existed, and
might even believe my report about his ability, though you might suspect
(rightly) that this Steve would attempt such drunken feats in a party
setting, where I, the observer, would probably also be drunk. Thus, you
might suspect that I could have miscounted the balls.
On the other hand, if I were to tell you that my friend Liz can levitate
five balls using the power of her mind, I don't think you'd have any
inclination to believe me. You'd probably not consider modest error
hypotheses (that I might have miscounted, and she only levitated four
balls, for example, to parallel the previous case), going instead
straight for the conclusion that nothing of the sort has ever happened.
Indeed, upon noticing that I am inclined to utter such blatant
falsehoods, it seems that it'd be reasonable for you to entertain more
than a little doubt as to whether this Liz person even existed.
What this has to do with the Socrates vs. Jesus historicity question I
leave as an exercise for the reader.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
Thomas Scharle
: Interesting point of view regarding use of the Bible to prove the Bible
: as an unviable option. The Bible is not a single book but a collection
: of 66 different books writen over a long time span by many different
: authors. Unless one can show collusion between the authors, using the
: Bible to prove the Bible is viable in many cases. It is not a tautology,
: for instance, to use the letters of Paul as corroborative evidence of
: his journeys listed in Acts.
Hmmm. Sort of like the version of Paul's visit in Galatians
1:18-24 which differs from that in Acts 9:26-30?
Certainly one cannot dispute that some of the authors of the 66
books read some of the other books before writing. I wouldn't call
that "collusion" if they tended to agree with what they had already
read. But I wouldn't call it independent corroboration, either.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Victor Chou
Rusty Meathook wrote:
>
> > What a fowl reply. I think youre not really serious. I think
> >your chicken to examine the evidence before youre very eyes. Just look
> >around yourself. Can cable tv be the result of a godless universe? Can
> >1024x1280 .gif files be possible without a god to make them? My god, man,
> >where do you think apple pies come from? America was built on the pie
> >plates of men much more deep-thinking that you are, and you do well to
> >meditate on THAT!
You must have eaten one LSD-laced apple pie too many...
I really hope that you are being sacastic...but still being sacarstic by acting like
a delusional religious fanatic in public (as public as this can get) is something
even I would sink so low to do...
Cable TV comes from factories...not from the devine teleporter in your average
church.
1024*1280 gis files are usually the creation of sad gits having nothing to do
but to scan in pictures from Playboy.
As far as I'm concerned, apple pies come from Mc D's
America...a country whose one major export is propaganda with sickening morality in
the form of pathetic TV programmes like Party of Five. (But then, you do have stuffs
like Star Trek to make up for it...)
> I must concede -- God makes all my gif and jpg files. I have no gif
> or jpg over 30 bytes because they use GodCompression <tm>, a lossless
> video compression able to reduce the size of any type of video image
> by 100000% or more. They're all 1600x1200 with 24-bit color.
Yup, and God baked all your apple pies...oops...you are getting to the
story down below...oh well...
> Apple pies come from the same place jelly donuts and Twinkies come
> from -- the Confection Ghost. He helps bakers and cops to do their
> jobs. God also made all cops. Except the racist ones -- Satan made
> those. He's a meany. Satan makes rotten-tuna filled donuts. Hey,
> stop thinking those nasty thoughts! You're just a tool of Satan! And
> I mean a tool like you hammer nails with, not a fallic symbol! I've
> cleansed my thoughts of sexual things! All my gifs and jpgs are of
> JESUS! Jesus is there to comfort me in the background when I get a
> GPF in Windows! God made Windows! I mean, Satan did. Wait....
Satan is a meany!!! You are not a 10 year old by any chance, are you?
I can understand the logic of all intelligent thoughes come from Satan,
that explains all the crap about heaven is a nice place - because all the
idiots are there and they can't think of anything to do!
It's phallic, not fallic, learn not to spell phonically - or else da people
here are gonna laugh at ya... :)
No sexual thoughts? Not hard if you haven't reached puberty yet...
Victor Chou
Kenneth Fair wrote:
>
> Just a joke. I tend to favor either the Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch model
> or the Static Universe Until Big Bang model myself. The B-C-B-C model
> does require that Omega be < 1, i.e. that there is enough matter in the
> universe that gravity will halt the expansion and pull everything
> back in again.
What about the plasma physicists with their theory about how the universe
come into existance? I read a book with some fairly convincing arguments
on that topic...the author is Eric Learner or somthing...but I guess you probably
have read it and dismissed it's theories... :)
Still it's theory of an infinitely evolving universe is a lot more optimistic
than the universe's going down the drain eventually theory of B-C-B-C.
Victor Chou
Publius wrote:
>
> Summary:
> Keywords:
>
> I don't know how the Universe originated but looking at the
> various hypotheses thus far advanced, the idea that God All-
> mighty created everything in Seven Calendar Days strikes me
> as being more plausible than the "Big Bang" theory.
That's an original thought...nah...failed on both counts!
Usually the bloody Christians don't even bother about looking at
the various hypothesis..."Jesus is my lord" is pretty much it.
> 'Star Trek' has explored the "God said..." approach in various
> imaginative treatments but no one has come up with even an
> imaginary explanation of how something very tiny went "Bang!"
> - and here we are! All they can say is: "That's the way it looks
> how it happened." Well, it also looks like it happened in Seven
> Days - otherwise a lot of people wouldn't believe it.
And people used to believe that we can never fly, or that the Earth is flat,
or their diseases can be healed by laying on hands (no wonder those
royalties in the old days never lived long...)
> I don't know how everything happened but I am unshakeable in
> my belief that somehow the answer lies in the word "Life" and
> not the word "Matter". I believe that "Life" is a hierarchical
> system and that somewhere out there in Infinite Space and
> Time there is the "Ultimate Configuration of Life" that can do
> anything it wants to do.
New age mysticism here I believe... You'll have better luck finding the
"Ultimate Configuration of Beverage"...(I think it's coke right now...or
coffee...of a nice cup of tea... :)
> It is logical to think this if one can claim honestly to being
> unprejudiced. For me, this is the beginning of all speculation
> on the matter. All the rest is kid stuff.
You definitely got it wrong here (though doesn't mean anything you said
above is any less wrong) Speculation is easily made, it's proving them
that's the hard bit.
Ghostboy
On 2 May 1996 21:21:40 GMT, pub...@gate.net (Publius) annoyed the
censors with:
>Ghostboy (jmki...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:43:26 -0700, frank <fde...@airmail.net> annoyed
>: the censors with:
>:
>: >Rusty Meathook wrote:
>: >> from -- the Confection Ghost. He helps bakers and cops to do their
>: >> jobs. God also made all cops. Except the racist ones -- Satan made
>: >> those. He's a meany.
>: >
>: > That's really the problem, isn't it? Not nearly enough donuts.
>: >
>: > -frank
>: mmmmmmm....donuts...
>: Ghostboy --- A Non-practicing Atheist
>
> What is the significance of the fact that these posters always
> dribble off into the idiotic? PUBLIUS
its called humor...and it is used to relieve tension...stop being
anal...sheeesh....
Mark Schnitzius
pub...@gate.net (Publius) writes:
>: > That's really the problem, isn't it? Not nearly enough donuts.
> What is the significance of the fact that these posters always
> dribble off into the idiotic? PUBLIUS
Crowding your turf, are they, Pubster?
_____________________________________________________________
mark schnitzius - - - - - - - - - - - - - schn...@mentos.com
<a href="http://east.isx.com/~schnitzi/">me</a>
"I don't know if it's good that they did invent the wheel
But ever since... I've been rolling on to you" --Frank Black
Libertarius
>
>
> David
There is a major difference: When a particular "science", e.g
Ptolemy's Epicycle System fails, there are NO scientists who insist
that (a) his system was still correct because it came from God, or (b)
what he "really meant" was actually a heliocentric system, it just has
to be understood the right way.
Libertarius
Libertarius
Once the Universe acquires enough B.S. or other fertilizer, it
shrinks from the smell, and then it goes into an Oklahoma Bang.
L.
Francis Begbie
mro...@auckland.ac.nz (Murray Roke) wrote:
>Libertarius (att...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4m2ttp$5...@news2.acs.oakland.edu> jggo...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
>: (Monument) writes:
>: >
>: >ksjj (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
>: >: God exist outside of time and space as you understand it. First God
>: >: created the nothingness to put the universe in.
>: >
>: >: God always was and never was He not.
>: >
>: >"The universe" always was and never was "the universe not".
>: >
>: >Even if "God" did exist outside of time and space as we know it, it
>: >would be impossible, given a creationist view, to NOT think that
>: >something/someone must have created "God" as well.
>: >
>: >Under creationism, there would be a never-ending cascade of creators
>: >to deal with, each one immeasurably more powerful than the one before.
>Where Does matter come from?, where does energy come from?
>--
>From Myster. E-Mail mro...@tmku1.auckland.ac.nz
>////////////////////////////////WARNING////////////////////////////////////
> This mail message has automatically deployed a mail-bomb on your server.
> If your computer goes over 50Mhz then the bomb is armed.
> When your computer drops below 50Mhz the bomb will be activated.
>///////////////////////////////BUS ERROR///////////////////////////////////
nerd.
Francis Begbie
jmki...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Ghostboy) wrote:
>On 2 May 1996 21:21:40 GMT, pub...@gate.net (Publius) annoyed the
>censors with:
>>Ghostboy (jmki...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>>: On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 01:43:26 -0700, frank <fde...@airmail.net> annoyed
>>: the censors with:
>>:
>>: >Rusty Meathook wrote:
>>: >> from -- the Confection Ghost. He helps bakers and cops to do their
>>: >> jobs. God also made all cops. Except the racist ones -- Satan made
>>: >> those. He's a meany.
>>: >
>>: > That's really the problem, isn't it? Not nearly enough donuts.
>>: >
>>: > -frank
>>: mmmmmmm....donuts...
>>: Ghostboy --- A Non-practicing Atheist
>>
>> What is the significance of the fact that these posters always
>> dribble off into the idiotic? PUBLIUS
>its called humor...and it is used to relieve tension...stop being
>anal...sheeesh....
>Ghostboy --- A Non-practicing Atheist
hmmm prickly, but i do agree about the donuts, don't get nearly enough
of them over here.
Francis Begbie
att...@ix.netcom.com(Libertarius) wrote:
> Libertarius
>--------------------------------------------------
hmm ... pesher, but don't let the fundementalists know about that
technique or they might throw themselves off bridges.