Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Creation VS Evolution

9 views
Skip to first unread message

David Jensen

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

On Fri, 02 Aug 1996 12:01:43 -0700, Jerry Hoffman <cros...@pennet.net>
wrote:

>The Other Way

[A fraudulent, intentional mistatement of science spammed to all the
world. I have trimmed many headers, but not enough. Follow-ups trimmed
further]

What lies. Bad poetry lying for g-d.

===========================================================================

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt (Earl of Chatham), speech in the House of Lords, Nov. 18, 1783

Jerry Hoffman

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to
POEM22.TXT

Brian Zeiler

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

Jerry Hoffman wrote:

> So I'll just believe the Bible
> For someday all men will see
> God made it all in six short days
> Without a P.H.D.

Ignore the facts and wallow in
Depraved insanity;
Religious nuts are scared to death
To face reality.

--
Brian Zeiler

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

Jerry Hoffman,

That's a very long list of newsgroups. Which one are you located?
I will respond from sci.physics.


In <320248...@students.wisc.edu> Brian Zeiler


<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> writes:
>
>Jerry Hoffman wrote:
>
>> So I'll just believe the Bible
>> For someday all men will see
>> God made it all in six short days

>> Without a Ph.D.

I am sure that God does not need a Ph.D. in any field. However,...

1) How do you know the exact length of time for a day is 24 hours
in Genesis?
2) When did God start the rotation of the earth?
3) Was the earth's period of rotation always the same or did it
vary?
4) Give me an example where God did change the setting of the sun.

You see, physics and theology can go hand-in-hand.


>Ignore the facts and wallow in
>Depraved insanity;
>Religious nuts are scared to death
>To face reality.

One does not have to ignore the facts.
But what are the exact facts?
What are "religious nuts?" Are they related to peanuts? ;-)


Duncan Sinclair

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

There is nothing worse than a person who has a feeble-minded literal grasp
of the bible.

Sean Webb

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

someone spammed :

> The Other Way
>
> One day some men of science
> Who thought that they were bright
> Set out to prove the Bible wrong
> And their ideas right
>
> They started with creation
> And said, "This just can't be
> Why the man who wrote this theory
> Didn't have a P.H.D.
>
> So they put their heads together
> As we humans sometimes do
> And thought up this amazing tale
> Which I'll relate to you
>
> It seems a tiny speck of dust
> Was floating out in space
> When ZAP a bolt of lightning struck
> Hitting it in the face
>
>
{MAJOR BIG SNIP]

Let me start by apologising to those alt.sci. groups that have this post , but if the
lion fodder wants to SPAM then we have at least the right to reply.
It friday evening , i've had a glass of wine and NOW i'm in the mood.

some body certainly has a lot of free time on their hands !!

BTW who invented GOD.

If you accept ' God always was and always will be'
i see no fundamental difference between this statement and
'the universe always was and always will be'.

(i) They both start with an act of faith.
(ii) They both proclaim that there was nothing before
(iii) Both claims cannot be disproved. see (i) above (a bit like QM no ?)

If you accept that the universe always was and always will be , then there is no
need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was there so that
(a) When we die, it is not the end
(b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they have one
ready made.
(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can have a ready
made reason to feel special and loved.
(d) Because of their faith in god some people do a lot of good, but unfortunately
many more have caused others extreme hardship.


BTW as an aside , todate i have met ALOT of deeply religious people but out of all
those that i have sat down and listened to , in the end they have all proved to be
exceedingly biggotted in several areas with only one exception so far.
He was a Harri Harishna. Whether its him or his brand of faith i don't know , but i
admired his openess to criticism , his honestly and general non assuming nature.
He also never poked fun at others beliefs (the christians can learn something here!!)
I don't agree with is philosophy but i can't complain about his attitude.
Its about time that christians got off their high horses (they can't even agree with
each other) and accepted that 'there can be only one' is nothing more than a quote
from highlander.

PS. if GOD does exist , is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty principle ??

'Do you serve anthing other than SPAM ?'
'Yes sir, we have ....'
'SPAM and CHIPS'
'SPAM and SPAM'
.......
'SPAM and christians'

wasn't the life of brian great !!

All religions require an act of faith, as such they cannot be disproved, therefore
they are all valid. Anyone that claims otherwise is blind.

As you sow (SPAM) so shall you reap (get spammed)

'Hello '
'F*ck off'
' Eh ? i've come for a argument'
'Sorry sir , this rooms is for insults, next room down the corridor for arguments'
- Monty Python

Sean Webb


Jeff Wilson

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

Jerry Hoffman wrote:
>
>
> It seems a tiny speck of dust
> Was floating out in space
> When ZAP a bolt of lightning struck
> Hitting it in the face
>
> Well lightnings pretty powerful
> As you and I know well
> But can it change a speck of dust
> Into a living cell?
>

You're right. It'd take a miracle to make this happen. Wait!
According to the Bible, God caused many miracles to happen.
Why is this one so hard for you to believe? What about this
whole topic precludes God from causing things to happen as
we observe them?

--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Jeff Wilson | In space, no one can |
| jdwi...@nortel.com | hear you scream!! |
| Richardson, TX - my opinions are...MINE. | |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bob puharic

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:


> Why would evolutionists be xtians? Why do they need God? Where
>did you get your statistics on the number of evolutionists who are
>xtians? What are the facts? Where are the facts? Census?

>>
why wouldnt they be? who knows why people believe in god? only the
idiots who are fundies and say that the bible must be literally
interpreted would claim creationism. about 85% of americans are
xtians. scientists are americans (in the US at least) ergo...

> I did not see the examination papers on what he knows about
>xtianity or science. Where can I get a copy of the results? How did
>you score? ;-)

>
well i guess as a scientist, ive seen his errors before. they aint
science.
>>
>>I think its great when someone who is obviously biased accuses those
>>who are objective of having a bias. if ever a pot called a kettle
>>black...

> Are scientists objective? No bias is found in their works? If
>ever a kettle called a pot black.... [pun]

yes they are objective...they have to be. their work is designed to be
reproducible by anyone regardless of bias...as opposed to creationists
who are biased from the word go in favor of biblical literalism. As
yourself why only biblical literalists are creationists...think about
it!

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Sean Webb,

That is indeed a long listing of newsgroups. I will respond from
sci.physics.

In <N.080296....@196-7-124-176.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
(Sean Webb) writes:
>
...[snip]

>Let me start by apologising to those alt.sci. groups that have this
>post , but if the lion fodder wants to SPAM then we have at least the
>right to reply.
>It friday evening , i've had a glass of wine and NOW i'm in the mood.
>
>some body certainly has a lot of free time on their hands !!
>
>BTW who invented GOD.
>
>If you accept ' God always was and always will be'
>i see no fundamental difference between this statement and
>'the universe always was and always will be'.

What is the known universe? How do you know it always existed?

>(i) They both start with an act of faith.

How do you know God is an act of faith? If God is eternal, what
does faith got to do with His existence? Faith is a human reaction.

>(ii) They both proclaim that there was nothing before

What is "nothing?" What is "before?" Who proclaims?

>(iii) Both claims cannot be disproved. see (i) above (a bit like QM no
>?)

Is this circular reasoning?


>If you accept that the universe always was and always will be, then


>there is no need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was
>there so that

>(a) When we die, it is not the end.

You mean that there may be an "afterlife?"

>(b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they
>have one ready made.

What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
recipe? :-)

>(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.

You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall
to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very
hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth
more than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-30)

>(d) Because of their faith in god some people do a lot of good, but
>unfortunately many more have caused others extreme hardship.
>

Yes, you are quite right. A lot of conflict has been perpetrate in
the name of a particular religion or in the name of God.


>BTW as an aside, todate i have met ALOT of deeply religious people but
>out of all those that i have sat down and listened to, in the end they


>have all proved to be exceedingly biggotted in several areas with only
>one exception so far. He was a Harri Harishna. Whether its him or his

>brand of faith i don't know, but i admired his openess to criticism,


>his honestly and general non assuming nature.
>He also never poked fun at others beliefs (the christians can learn
something here!!)

Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)

What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?



>I don't agree with is philosophy but i can't complain about his
>attitude. Its about time that christians got off their high horses

Amen! That's good preaching, preacher! Oops. :-)


>(they can't even agree with each other) and accepted that 'there can
>be only one' is nothing more than a quote from highlander.

Like wow! "The Truth is out there!" (X-Files)

[P.S. Note that "Truth" is personified.]
>
>PS. if GOD does exist, is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty
>principle??

If God is the Designer of the universe, if He wrote the physical
laws and if He knew Heisenberg before the foundations of the world were
laid, then what makes you think that God is bounded by anything?

Jesus said, "With God all things are possible."

...[snip]


>
>All religions require an act of faith, as such they cannot be
>disproved, therefore they are all valid. Anyone that claims otherwise
>is blind.

If all religions are valid, then how was it that Jesus of Nazareth
was able to make the blind to see, to heal the cripple, and to raise
the dead?

What do you think about the claims that Jesus made about himself?
Namely, Jesus claimed, "He was the way, the truth and the life."
Now that is a rather exclusive statement. There are no other ways.

>
>As you sow (SPAM) so shall you reap (get spammed)
>
>'Hello '
>'F*ck off'

Why would anyone what to do that? ;-)

>'Eh ? i've come for an argument'
>'Sorry sir, this rooms is for insults, next room down the corridor for


>arguments'
>- Monty Python
>
>Sean Webb
>

Have a nice day!


Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Bob Puharic,

That's still a long listing of newsgroups. I will respond from
sci.physics.


In <4tts2n$f...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:

>
>Jerry Hoffman <cros...@pennet.net> wrote:
>
>>The Other Way
>
>>One day some men of science
>>Who thought that they were bright
>>Set out to prove the Bible wrong
>>And their ideas right
>
>

>well at least this idiot didnt waste any time posting something that
>is wrong right up front. most evolutionists are xtians.

Why would evolutionists be xtians? Why do they need God? Where
did you get your statistics on the number of evolutionists who are
xtians? What are the facts? Where are the facts? Census?

>of course, he knows as much about xtianity as he does about science.

I did not see the examination papers on what he knows about
xtianity or science. Where can I get a copy of the results? How did
you score? ;-)

>

Sean Webb

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Carmen Toledo,
[lots of snips]

>
> Is this circular reasoning?
>
Yup

>
> >If you accept that the universe always was and always will be, then
> >there is no need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was
> >there so that
>
> >(a) When we die, it is not the end.
>
> You mean that there may be an "afterlife?"

yup

>
> >(b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they
> >have one ready made.
>
> What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
> recipe? :-)
>

ready - made ... god exists as per the scriptures , therefore he loves us one and
all, we all all his children hence special. seems a ready made pupose to life.

> >(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
> have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.
>
> You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?
>

the answer depends on whether you are a christian or not , and if you take the
bible literally

>
>
> Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)
>

Its a way of life, just like buddism , christianity etc

> What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?
>

thats the point ...
Every christian (deeply religious ones) i have met is biggoted in a different area.
The ones that take the bible literally (or so they claim) point to those that don't as
being deceived by the devil.
I have yet to meet one person that takes the bible literally , that does so for every
word. There is ALWAYS some area that he will take as being 'a matter for
interpretation'.
Put two christians in a room together and i will guarantee that within half an hour i
could find and area upon which they will both disagree and refuse to budge, each
believing that the other to be misguided.
BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to cover
more times than i care to count.
In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been modified , not by
divine guidance , but by biased translations & chinese whispers. There is some
truth , but what parts i cannot say.

> Have a nice day!
>
same to you

Sean Webb
[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]


bob puharic

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Jerry Hoffman <cros...@pennet.net> wrote:

>The Other Way

>One day some men of science
>Who thought that they were bright
>Set out to prove the Bible wrong
>And their ideas right


well at least this idiot didnt waste any time posting something that

is wrong right up front. m ost evolutionists are xtians. of course, he


knows as much about xtianity as he does about science.

I think its great when someone who is obviously biased accuses those

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

In <sinclair-020...@news.cyberstore.net>

sinc...@netbistro.com (Duncan Sinclair) writes:
>
>
>There is nothing worse than a person who has a feeble-minded literal
>grasp of the bible.

I didn't know that all those scholars and archaeologists who
publish in Biblical Archaeology Review or similar journals were
"feeble-minded."


Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

In <N.080396....@196-7-171-235.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
(Sean Webb) writes:
...[cut]


>> What is the purpose-in-life that's already made? Is there a
>> recipe? :-)
>>
>ready - made ... god exists as per the scriptures, therefore he loves

>us one and all, we all all his children hence special. seems a ready
>made pupose to life.

Did God exist before the Scriptures were written down by the
several authors? Didn't there exist oral tradition long before Moses?

Now, what is God's purpose to life?


>> >(c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can
>> have a ready made reason to feel special and loved.
>>
>> You mean "esteem." How significant are we to God?
>>

>the answer depends on whether you are a christian or not, and if you
>take the bible literally
>

Does it help if you take a semester of hermeneutics?

>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Did Harri tell you that he was a cultist? :-)
>>

>Its a way of life, just like buddism, christianity etc


>
>> What is "exceedingly biggotted?" In what areas?
>>
>thats the point ...
>Every christian (deeply religious ones) i have met is biggoted in a
>different area.

Are not atheists also bigoted? Isn't one's beliefs dependents on
one's worldview? Culture is a factor.

>The ones that take the bible literally (or so they claim) point to
>those that don't as being deceived by the devil.

Who is that fellow? Does he exist? Why is there evil in the
world?


>I have yet to meet one person that takes the bible literally , that
>does so for every word. There is ALWAYS some area that he will take as
>being 'a matter for interpretation'.

Again, would a semester of hermeneutics be helpful to the scholar?

>Put two christians in a room together and i will guarantee that within
>half an hour i could find and area upon which they will both disagree
>and refuse to budge, each believing that the other to be misguided.

It may be the reason why there a so many denominations.



>BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to
>cover more times than i care to count.
>In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been

>modified, not by divine guidance, but by biased translations & chinese
>whispers.

Can you also read the original languages? Do Bible publishers not
have interlinears? Why be lazy?

>There is some truth, but what parts i cannot say.

Are you talking about history in the Bible? Are you talking about
moral absolutes?

Bernhard Schopper

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Jeff Wilson <jdwi...@nortel.com> wrote:
>Jerry Hoffman wrote:

<snip>

>> Well lightnings pretty powerful
>> As you and I know well
>> But can it change a speck of dust
>> Into a living cell?
>
>You're right. It'd take a miracle to make this happen.

No, it doesn't. Just like it doesn't take a miracle to split an atom,
it wouldn't take a miracle to "create" an organic molecule.
The technology for such a feat just doesn't exist yet.

>Wait!
>According to the Bible, God caused many miracles to happen.
>Why is this one so hard for you to believe?

Yawn.


Bernie

Peter Bray

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Sean Webb wrote:
>

> If you accept ' God always was and always will be'
> i see no fundamental difference between this statement and

> 'the universe always was and always will be'.


>
> (i) They both start with an act of faith.

> (ii) They both proclaim that there was nothing before

> (iii) Both claims cannot be disproved. see (i) above (a bit like QM no ?)

The chain of argument here is not.
At least your lower case "i" gives the impression
you are humbled by the awesome magnitude of your contemplation.

Wherever did you get the impression that the Universe always was?
Thirty years ago that was one of two main popular theories.
It is less popular now given a lot of astronomical, astrophysical,
and nuclear physics evidence and theoretical physics work.

> If you accept that the universe always was and always will be , then there is no


> need for a god , but it would be rather nice if he was there so that
> (a) When we die, it is not the end

> (b) For those that cannot create their own purpose in life, well they have one
> ready made.

> (c) For those unfortunate people who have low self-estime they can have a ready
> made reason to feel special and loved.

> (d) Because of their faith in god some people do a lot of good, but unfortunately
> many more have caused others extreme hardship.

Your principal sentence here contradicts itself.
As to your supporting contentions:
(a) Could you please check for me? - I'm busy here.
(b) You imply that those who serve God are incapable of developing goals.
Some of the most competent people in the world manage both.
The not so subtle implication is that they are somehow lost.
Might not that apply to someone else in this dialogue?
(c) Only a fool never feels moments of low self-estime.
(d) That is not God's fault but a flawed humanity.

> He was a Harri Harishna. Whether its him or his brand of faith i don't know , but i
> admired his openess to criticism , his honestly and general non assuming nature.


> He also never poked fun at others beliefs (the christians can learn something here!!)

So might you - the whole tone of your post attempts to denigrate
people who believe in God.

> PS. if GOD does exist , is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty principle ??

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not mean that everything
must be uncertain. It is a measure of the inappropriateness of the
crude concepts and mental symbols we use to think about the universe
at the fundamental physics scale. The error is not in reality itself
but in the usefullness of concepts like position and velocity at the
fundamental particle level.

The envelope around reality as opposed to the supernatural moves as
we learn more. That does not make things once ascribed to the supernatural
any less real, it simply brings them into the gambit of our primitive
science. Whether God, an After-Life, or elements of the so-called
Para-Normal are a part of the Universe or outside it, is simply a matter
of definition (and how advanced Science is in a given era).

Have you ever been looking at someone who could not possibly see you
and have them suddenly turn and look straight at you? Have you ever
suddenly felt complelled to turn and see someone looking at you?
Can you explain it? - Does that mean it must be pure chance? It may be
but of course it might not be. Nor can you assume that it might not be
an accepted scientific phenomenon of a future day.

> All religions require an act of faith, as such they cannot be disproved, therefore
> they are all valid. Anyone that claims otherwise is blind.

Sometimes there is a response that you can feel as keenly as you know
your own name. That is more than just faith. I would not be surprised
to find that all the great prophets of God had more in common than
otherwise. Tune in.

--
Cheers

Peter Bray
'An Australian in Dallas'
mailto:pab...@airmail.net No Junk E-Mail Please!

Harry H Conover

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Jerry Hoffman wrote:
:
: > So I'll just believe the Bible
: > For someday all men will see
: > God made it all in six short days
: > Without a P.H.D.
:
: Ignore the facts and wallow in

: Depraved insanity;
: Religious nuts are scared to death
: To face reality.
:
: --
: Brian Zeiler


A most interesting statement, particularly considering
its author!

Harry C.


Jim Shaffer, Jr.

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

In article <320250...@pennet.net> Jerry Hoffman <cros...@pennet.net> writes:
> Well a lot of faith is needed
> To believe this was the way
> In fact the odds against it
> Are astronomical I'd say

Well, it had an astronomical amount of time to happen in. Even more, if
you consider that there could've been universes before this one, and other
universes simultaneously.

--
* From the disk of: | jsha...@mail.csrlink.net | "there's a hell of
Jim Shaffer, Jr. | IRC: JustnCase // | a good universe
37 Brook Street | "Real AM radios go // | next door; let's go"
Montgomery, PA 17752 | from 150 to 30000" \\// | (e.e. cummings)

bob puharic

unread,
Aug 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/4/96
to

daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:

kind of proves the point, doesnt it. who ever said that "all those
scholars" were biblical literalists?


Sean Webb

unread,
Aug 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/4/96
to

peter bray wrote:

>
> At least your lower case "i" gives the impression
> you are humbled by the awesome magnitude of your contemplation.
>

Nope i just think(i) ,(ii) looks better than (I) & (II)

> Wherever did you get the impression that the Universe always was?

Where did you get the impression that the universe never 'always was'
no one has absolutely cleared this one up yet to my knowledge.
If the BIG BANG did take place , no one can be sure that it was the first of such.


>
> (c) Only a fool never feels moments of low self-estime.

I disagree.
Everyone at times will feel a loss of purpose , especially when a personal
misfortune befalls them that requires self/direction in life re-evaluation.

If you know who you are, you accept your own failings and love yourself
inspite of those failings as you would love another inspite of their failings.
If you accept that those failings are part of your human nature , and that with these
failings you are not a such unique.
With your failings come a set of 'good characteristics' that compensate for those
failings. (you love yourself WARTS and all)
If you are true unto your own self.
If you are basically an honest person , who is aware of your own self delusions.
Then you never have a reason to lose your self esteem.

>
> So might you - the whole tone of your post attempts to denigrate
> people who believe in God.
>

Nope. It was a slap round the face with a wet kipper.
Not meant to do any serious harm , but evoke a reaction.
How someone responds to such will always tell you more about that person in 10
minutes than two weeks of pleasant conversation.
The nature of a man is in how they react to adversity.

> > PS. if GOD does exist , is he bound by the heisenberg uncertainty principle ??
>

A flippant wet kipper.

>
> Have you ever been looking at someone who could not possibly see you
> and have them suddenly turn and look straight at you? Have you ever
> suddenly felt complelled to turn and see someone looking at you?
> Can you explain it? - Does that mean it must be pure chance? It may be
> but of course it might not be. Nor can you assume that it might not be
> an accepted scientific phenomenon of a future day.
>

No i can't explain it.But it happens to me 95 % of the time. Go figure.
The only explanation that i have is that some people have a much stronger
presence about themselves than others. People can sense this some how.
Call it a Karma , or life force. Haven't you ever noticed that some people command
a presence when walking into a room of strangers , without even saying one word
or dressing different ?
Such people are usually highly self confident and very competant in whatever they
CHOOSE to do , and they are also significantly in the minority.
They look around the room and see that for most, the light is on but the house is
empty.

Sean Webb


frank dever

unread,
Aug 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/4/96
to

Jeff Wilson <jdwi...@nortel.com> wrote:

>Jerry Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> It seems a tiny speck of dust
>> Was floating out in space
>> When ZAP a bolt of lightning struck
>> Hitting it in the face
>>

>> Well lightnings pretty powerful
>> As you and I know well
>> But can it change a speck of dust
>> Into a living cell?
>>
>

>You're right. It'd take a miracle to make this happen. Wait!

>According to the Bible, God caused many miracles to happen.

>Why is this one so hard for you to believe? What about this
>whole topic precludes God from causing things to happen as
>we observe them?

I know! They go on for hours giving a "scientific" explanation
for Noah's ark, but when it comes to life, it's "a miracle." There is
no science here!

-frank


>
>--
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| Jeff Wilson | In space, no one can |
>| jdwi...@nortel.com | hear you scream!! |
>| Richardson, TX - my opinions are...MINE. | |
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-----
I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong.
How can that be? It's a miracle!

Mendel Cooper

unread,
Aug 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/4/96
to

..Could it be that the dogmatic creationists and neo-Darwinists are
*both* wrong. Maybe they deserve each other (or should learn from each
other).

In my (flawed) experience, no one owns the Truth... but everyone maybe
has access to a teeny piece of the truth. If people would only get
together and *listen* to each other, rather than pontificating...

Dogma is the enemy of free inquiry.


--
=================================================
We aim to do to literature what Freud did to sex,
utterly ruin it.
---Edward Preston
-------------------------------------------------
++ http://personal.riverusers.com/~thegrendel/ ++
-------------------------------------------------

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/4/96
to
Nope. You didn't say what is taken to be literal in the Scriptures
and by whom.


Daniel A. Morgan

unread,
Aug 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/4/96
to Mendel Cooper

> In my (flawed) experience, no one owns the Truth... but everyone maybe
> has access to a teeny piece of the truth. If people would only get
> together and *listen* to each other, rather than pontificating...

Thanks for the pontification. Glad you could make a contribution.

Daniel Morgan

bob puharic

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

Mendel Cooper <thegr...@theriver.com> wrote:


>..Could it be that the dogmatic creationists and neo-Darwinists are
>*both* wrong. Maybe they deserve each other (or should learn from each
>other).

>In my (flawed) experience, no one owns the Truth... but everyone maybe

>has access to a teeny piece of the truth. If people would only get
>together and *listen* to each other, rather than pontificating...

>Dogma is the enemy of free inquiry.

dante said that the deepest pit of hell is reserved for those who
can't make make a decision. there is truth and there is falsehood.
creationism is false. if you can make such a basic decision then it's
pointless to even argue since everyone is right.


bob puharic

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:

>In <4u01ip$1...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>>
>>daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:
>>
>>>In <sinclair-020...@news.cyberstore.net>
>>>sinc...@netbistro.com (Duncan Sinclair) writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing worse than a person who has a feeble-minded literal
>>>>grasp of the bible.
>>
>>> I didn't know that all those scholars and archaeologists who
>>>publish in Biblical Archaeology Review or similar journals were
>>>"feeble-minded."
>>
>>kind of proves the point, doesnt it. who ever said that "all those
>>scholars" were biblical literalists?
>>
> Nope. You didn't say what is taken to be literal in the Scriptures
>and by whom.

i think you're confused. the original author of this post asserted
that all biblical scholars are literalists. I simply said how does he
know this. besides, literalists assert literalism quite literally!


Ed Nuhfer

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to Jerry Hoffman

Jerry Hoffman wrote:
>
> The Other Way
>
> One day some men of science
> Who thought that they were bright
> Set out to prove the Bible wrong
> And their ideas right
>

(CLIP)

The fanatics' approach to "science" that supports a Flat Earth
Society and "earth as center of the universe" is right in the first
verse above---first start with a conclusion and then selectively
screen for evidence that supports it--even if you have to take the
evidence out of context and lie to support pop religious kookery.
The first verse of the poem tells a lot about the mind set of the
people who are desperate to add credibility to their own ideas.
That's how they do the kind of "science" that helps them sell their
proselytizing, so they think that's how real science is done by
everyone. The verse above shows that the author is as screwed up
about the methods of science as he is about its results.

Ed Nuhfer, CU-Denver -- who believes there's better science in
colleges than on the Bopb Enyart show.

Duncan Sinclair

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

> i think you're confused. the original author of this post asserted
> that all biblical scholars are literalists. I simply said how does he
> know this. besides, literalists assert literalism quite literally!

That's not what I said! I meant that the bible is not to be taken
literally. I myself have studied relgion, but I do not take any teaching
literally.

Jim Carr

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

Jerry Hoffman <cros...@pennet.net> writes:
>
>One day some men of science
>Who thought that they were bright
>Set out to prove the Bible wrong
>And their ideas right

Cute poem, but the first stanza begins with a false statement.

Men of science spent several centuries trying to prove the Bible right.
Only after a succession of about five different theories of evolution
by special creation, each contradicted by new discoveries, did they
find some success with theories based on natural selection.

--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Olympics report: whitewater slalom
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | and track&field were awesome in
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | person. Page with some of my
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | kayak photos will be coming soon.

Ross Brunetti

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

If the Bible is to be taken literally:

See Leviticus,11. We're not supposed to eat camels, the "rock badger", the "hare", and
the "pig". Not to mention creatures that "live in the water" that " lack either fins or
scales." No Calamari! Well, at least the birds mentioned aren't those *ANYONE* not
starving to death is likely to try to eat.

I'm quoting, by the way, from the "St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible",
Catholic Publishing Co., New York. For you Protestants, I believe similar wording is
contained in the "New James".


The premise is, the Bible must either be taken as literal truth, written (and
translated, and translated...) under Divine Guidance, or it must be viewed as a document
of considerable significance, but written by *HUMANS*, containing all the errors and
judgements that we are so capable of.

Hey, look at the Ten Commandments. "Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat on
your spouse". Sounds like a good way to live, regerdless of how you believe how we got
here.

Me, I can accept parts of of it, but as literal truth in all parts? NO.

And, you know what? As a "devout agnostic", I do do believe I ought to peruse the Koran.
Anyone know where an unbeliever can get a copy?


Ross

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In <4u3fou$o...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>
>daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:
>
...[cut]

>> You didn't say what is taken to be literal in the Scriptures
>>and by whom.
>
>i think you're confused. the original author of this post asserted
>that all biblical scholars are literalists. I simply said how does he
>know this. besides, literalists assert literalism quite literally!
>
You are right. This post ended up in sci.physics, and my internet
provider does not have the ability to trace it back the original post
when it has been cross-posted to so many newsgroups.


Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In <320421...@electriciti.com> Heidi Awes <he...@electriciti.com>
writes:
>
>Pity those who believe the human race began with two Hebrew
>speaking adults and a talking snake.

Those of us who accept literary scholarship know that the human
race did not start with two Hebrew speaking adults. We don't know what
exact language they spoke. The Hebrews started the man named Abram,
who is later called Abraham. (Genesis 14:13) They become a nation
through the 12 sons of Jacobs who were in slavery under the Egyptians.

As for that talking snake, have you not heard that he is one of the
most powerful, deceitful beings in the universe? It is revealed
centuries later by Ezekiel. "You were in Eden, the garden of God;
You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I (God) ordained you.
Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted
your wisdom because of your splendor. So I (God) threw you to the
earth...." (Ezekiel 28:12-19) This event of a guardian cherub's
expulsion from heaven occurred long before those two human adults were
in the garden. In fact, those two adults were placed into the middle
of a civil war, if you know what I mean. If you don't know, then read
Revelation 12:7-9, and you will know that the civil war is not yet
over. That is why there is evil in the world.

Of course, you may believe it is all a myth. :-)

Larry Irons

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

Ross Brunetti wrote:
>
> The premise is, the Bible must either be taken as literal truth, written (and
> translated, and translated...) under Divine Guidance, or it must be viewed as a document
> of considerable significance, but written by *HUMANS*, containing all the errors and
> judgements that we are so capable of.
>
> Hey, look at the Ten Commandments. "Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat on
> your spouse". Sounds like a good way to live, regerdless of how you believe how we got
> here.
>
> Me, I can accept parts of of it, but as literal truth in all parts? NO.
>
> And, you know what? As a "devout agnostic", I do do believe I ought to peruse the Koran.
> Anyone know where an unbeliever can get a copy?
>
> Ross

I, myself, prefer the Germanic story of the "Tree of Life" and the
Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. These are the original stories borrowed by
the Hebrews and corrupted from their original sources. Every scientist
knows that you have to go back as far as you can to the original
sources. In this case the stories of Genesis are predated by the
Indo-European mythology (Sumerians and Germans, etc). Therefore Germanic
mythology is closer to the "truth" than Genesis.

BTW - which God are we talking about that created the universe. Tiwaz,
perhaps? The Hebrews did not even have a name for him. Yiddish wasn't
invented yet.

--
======================================================
Larry Irons
ir...@qadas.com
from Lakewood, Colorado

Andrew Fittro

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In article <4tudrs$j...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>why wouldnt they be? who knows why people believe in god? only the
>idiots who are fundies and say that the bible must be literally
>interpreted would claim creationism. about 85% of americans are
>xtians. scientists are americans (in the US at least) ergo...

We're starting to get off topic here. At least any ONE topic.
But I'll say just a bit and then shutup again:

Christianity is defined as those who are followers of Christ.
To follow Christ is to go where he went (spiritually, since, obviously,
the many who claim Christianity have no ability or desire to follow
him physically in and around Israel or for that matter, to the
cross). In essence, to copy Him. Live like He lived. Believe
like He believed. Trust Whom He Trusted.

In short, Christians belive that Jesus is the only Way to
Heaven, the only salvation from sin.

By my above-stated definition, nearly all who claim
Christianity are not following him at all. 85% seems a very
large number to me. I go out weekly and talk to people
about Him. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics,
various Cults, most all Protestants, etc call themselves
Christian at one time or another when I speak with them.
Seems people don't know _what_ they believe. Seems they
don't care to live like the Bible says they should. Seems they
don't wanna follow Christ. Therefore you 85% is pure, incorrect
speculation.

I'm done. Sorry for the intrusion. Let's get back to talking about
whatever we're supposed to in our respective newsgroups. (I
read this in a physics NG!). Seems we all strayed a bit.

Polite or thought-provoking comments welcome. All useless
bilge will be forthightly trashed.

Food for thought. Enjoy the meal.

==========================================================
Andrew Fittro - Computer Consultant - ARK Systems Software
afi...@perpetual.com http://www.perpetual.com/
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"

George Black

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In article <4u0d1o$l...@news-old.tiac.net>,
Brian made a most elequent comment regarding the worse verse.
He did not write it.
I think, for once, we ALL agree on something :-)))


George Black
gbl...@midland.co.nz


Brian Zeiler

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

George Black wrote:

> Brian made a most elequent comment regarding the worse verse.
> He did not write it.
> I think, for once, we ALL agree on something :-)))

Yes, I did write it. I find religion to be logically deprived and morally
repugnant. What does that have to do with UFOs??

--
Brian Zeiler

The White Devil

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

Andrew Fittro wrote:
>
> Christianity is defined as those who are followers of Christ.
> To follow Christ is to go where he went (spiritually, since, obviously,
> the many who claim Christianity have no ability or desire to follow
> him physically in and around Israel or for that matter, to the
> cross). In essence, to copy Him. Live like He lived. Believe
> like He believed. Trust Whom He Trusted.

Crucify yourself as He was crucified.

> In short, Christians belive that Jesus is the only Way to
> Heaven, the only salvation from sin.

Not all Christians believe this, and not all have always believed this. Many
claim that good works alone are the key to salvation. Many claim that the key is faith.
Both seem to find biblical references to support them.

> By my above-stated definition, nearly all who claim
> Christianity are not following him at all. 85% seems a very
> large number to me. I go out weekly and talk to people
> about Him. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics,
> various Cults, most all Protestants, etc call themselves
> Christian at one time or another when I speak with them.

But they believe in the same fundamental idea as you, don't they? Most of them
do. Their concept of "faith" is different from yours, and so they go to Hell. I suppose
you'll claim to be God next. If so, could you tell me where the fuck I left my other
sock?

> Seems people don't know _what_ they believe. Seems they
> don't care to live like the Bible says they should. Seems they
> don't wanna follow Christ. Therefore you 85% is pure, incorrect
> speculation.

As is your concept of how the Bible says people should live.

> I'm done. Sorry for the intrusion. Let's get back to talking about
> whatever we're supposed to in our respective newsgroups. (I
> read this in a physics NG!). Seems we all strayed a bit.

It's been trimmed from the science newsgroups as of now.


> Polite or thought-provoking comments welcome. All useless
> bilge will be forthightly trashed.

Start with the bible.

--
The White Devil
Last Prophet of God since 1985

Go into the desert and wait for a sign.

Bernhard Schopper

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:

<snip>


>I find religion to be logically deprived and morally
>repugnant. What does that have to do with UFOs??

Isn't believing in UFOs not the same as believing in a god?
One idol is just being replaced by another.

Bernie


Juan Jos de Regules

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In <4u5qvc$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen

Toledo) writes:
>
>In <320421...@electriciti.com> Heidi Awes <he...@electriciti.com>
>writes:
>>
>>Pity those who believe the human race began with two Hebrew
>>speaking adults and a talking snake.
>
I've been enjoying this comment for half an hour and have shared it
with a couple of friends. I love it!

Greg 'Bonz' Newman

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

On Tue, 06 Aug 96 06:24:51 GMT, afi...@perpetual.com (Andrew
Fittro) wrote:

>In article <4tudrs$j...@news.enter.net>, wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>>why wouldnt they be? who knows why people believe in god? only the
>>idiots who are fundies and say that the bible must be literally
>>interpreted would claim creationism. about 85% of americans are
>>xtians. scientists are americans (in the US at least) ergo...

>We're starting to get off topic here. At least any ONE topic.
>But I'll say just a bit and then shutup again:

>Christianity is defined as those who are followers of Christ.


>To follow Christ is to go where he went (spiritually, since, obviously,
>the many who claim Christianity have no ability or desire to follow
>him physically in and around Israel or for that matter, to the
>cross). In essence, to copy Him. Live like He lived. Believe
>like He believed. Trust Whom He Trusted.

I'd agree with that. Anyone who believes that they are following
Jesus is a Christian.

>In short, Christians belive that Jesus is the only Way to
>Heaven, the only salvation from sin.

Whoa -- not necessarily. That may be what YOUR brand of
Christian believes.

>By my above-stated definition, nearly all who claim
>Christianity are not following him at all.

That's because you changed your definition from 'following
Jesus' to 'following Jesus like I do.'

Assuminf you're right is just a tad bit arrogant.

> 85% seems a very
>large number to me. I go out weekly and talk to people
>about Him. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics,
>various Cults, most all Protestants, etc call themselves
>Christian at one time or another when I speak with them.

That's because they all ARE Christians.

>Seems people don't know _what_ they believe. Seems they
>don't care to live like the Bible says they should. Seems they
>don't wanna follow Christ. Therefore you 85% is pure, incorrect
>speculation.

Ah. You are clearly wrong. YOU are not a Christian, by your
definition of 'following Christ'. You follw the bible. Jesus had
nothing to do with the bible.

Joseph Zorzin

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

Jim Carr wrote:

> Men of science spent several centuries trying to prove the Bible right.
> Only after a succession of about five different theories of evolution
> by special creation, each contradicted by new discoveries, did they
> find some success with theories based on natural selection.

Correct. Creationists would have their flocks believe that evolution is a
dogmatic theory announced by Darwin and all modern science just blindly
follows it.

This falsehood shows how uninformed the creationists are.

Paul Schlyter

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <4u787c$s...@news.cais.com>,

Bernhard Schopper <webw...@cais.com> wrote:

> Isn't believing in UFOs not the same as believing in a god?
> One idol is just being replaced by another.

Not quite -- UFO's is nothing to "believe" in since it's very easy to
demonstrate that they actually do exist: go out any clear (or cloudy,
if the clouds are high) night in or near any reasonably large city.
Watch the sky for achile -- during an hour or so you'll very likely
see several lights move across the sky. Airplanes, satellites or
possibly meteors, sure, but can you really identify each and every
one of them? If not, to you they are Unidentified Flying Objects
i.e. UFO's....

The problem with "UFO freaks" is that they've forgot that the "U"
means Unidentified -- they are far far too eager to identify the
UFO's they see as alien spacecrafts. If such an identification
really would be accurate, they would no longer be UFO's....

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@home.ausys.se

Christopher Carrell

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

Followups reduced to talk.origins. Watch that spam.

This is what is known as 'projection.' Or, expecting all to use the
methods that one uses.

Of course, in the case of the anti-evolution numbnuds in the whatever-it-is
church, they will also condemn all others for that 'projection.'

Or - "They can't do that to our pledges. Only we can do that to our
pledges!"

Chris

Jacek Strzelczyk

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

On Wed, 07 Aug 1996 05:24:40 -0400, Joseph Zorzin (red...@vgernet.net) wrote:
>
>Jim Carr wrote:
>
>> Men of science spent several centuries trying to prove the Bible right.
>> Only after a succession of about five different theories of evolution
>> by special creation, each contradicted by new discoveries, did they
>> find some success with theories based on natural selection.
>
>Correct. Creationists would have their flocks believe that evolution is a
>dogmatic theory announced by Darwin and all modern science just blindly
>follows it.
>
>This falsehood shows how uninformed the creationists are.


Except that natural selection dates back to Darwin, as do most parts
of the theory of evolution.

Jacek Strzelczyk.
--
I am just a simple Pole in a complex plane.


bob puharic

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

afi...@perpetual.com (Andrew Fittro) wrote:

>By my above-stated definition, nearly all who claim

>Christianity are not following him at all. 85% seems a very
>large number to me.t. Therefore you 85% is pure, incorrect
>speculation.

>Polite or thought-provoking comments welcome. All useless


>bilge will be forthightly trashed.


well in this case you're wrong. the barna research group, in oxnard,
CA, making a presentation before the republican national committee
meeting, quoted in the 8.8.96 allentown, pa "morning call" says that
87% of americans consider themselves xtians.

you stand corrected. your definition of whether or not they are doesnt
count.


Gvwm...@netcom.com

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

>>This falsehood shows how uninformed the creationists are.


> Except that natural selection dates back to Darwin, as do most parts
>of the theory of evolution.

natural selection and evolution has been with us since the beginning
of the first self replicating one nucleotide life.

This falsehood ALSO shows how uninformed the creationists are.

Kevin D. Quitt

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 20:59:21 GMT, wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>the barna research group, in oxnard,
>CA, making a presentation before the republican national committee
>meeting, quoted in the 8.8.96 allentown, pa "morning call" says that
>87% of americans consider themselves xtians.

Hmmm. A research group, hired to speak to the Christian-Right dominated
Republican party make claims for the % of people who claim to be Christian.
Couldn't possibly be biased. I'm sure their research methods were flawless
and unbiased. Hershey's had a study done that proved that chocolate doesn't
cause pimples. I believe that one, too.

--
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Daniel A. Morgan

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to Jeff Wilson

> What about this whole topic precludes God from causing things to happen
> as we observe them?

Dogma!

Daniel Morgan

Jacek Strzelczyk

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 19:40:41 GMT, Gvwm...@netcom.com (Gvwm...@netcom.com)
wrote:

Pardon me, I am not a creationist. If my phrasing was unclear, perhaps
I should have written the "idea of natural selection," Just out of curiosity,
what would "one nucleotide life" be?

Paul Haydock

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

On Sat, 03 Aug 96 10:26:38 GMT, spw...@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
:>BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to cover
:>more times than i care to count.
:>In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been modified , not by
:>divine guidance , but by biased translations & chinese whispers. There is some
:>truth , but what parts i cannot say.
:>
:>> Have a nice day!
:>>
:>same to you
:>
:>Sean Webb
:>[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]
:>

Hi Sean,
Now I would be interested if you would look at the Bible Numerics
section in www.http://trf.org.au
It claims proof of inspiration of the scriptures.

Go,
Paul

Sean Webb

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

'Claims' being the operative word.

Sean Webb

FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.


Frank J. Warner

unread,
Aug 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/10/96
to

In article <320a7546....@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
k...@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov wrote:

[Newsgroups trimmed]

> On Thu, 08 Aug 1996 20:59:21 GMT, wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
> >the barna research group, in oxnard,
> >CA, making a presentation before the republican national committee
> >meeting, quoted in the 8.8.96 allentown, pa "morning call" says that
> >87% of americans consider themselves xtians.
>
> Hmmm. A research group, hired to speak to the Christian-Right dominated
> Republican party make claims for the % of people who claim to be Christian.
> Couldn't possibly be biased. I'm sure their research methods were flawless
> and unbiased. Hershey's had a study done that proved that chocolate doesn't
> cause pimples. I believe that one, too.

Not to mention Bob Dole's uncertainty over (*hack* *hack* *cough* --'scuse
me while I reach for another Marlboro) tobacco's addictiveness.

Or the recently signed Welfare Reform bill, which has as its premise the
logic invented by the military during the Vietnam war: "We had to burn the
village to save it."

--
wild(at our first)beasts uttered human words
--our second coming made stones sing like birds--
but o the starhushed silence which our thirds

--e. e. cummings
'73 poems' (1963)

Jerry Teach

unread,
Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96
to
Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you don't agree with
the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,
therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
in a BIG way...

Jerry Teach

Charles W. Johnson

unread,
Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96
to

'lo everyone

I'd like to take the time to point out that, in a recent post, I
accidentally confused Mr. Quitt with Mr. Holden due to a misreading of the
annotations of who wrote what. I apologize sincerely to the Venerated Mr.
Holden, with his Mighty Store of Knowledge, that I might confuse him with
Mr. Quitt, who is so limited by that inconvienent faculty of common sense.

Jerry Teach (jte...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Sean Webb wrote:
[deletia]
: > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
Welllll, not really. Just "creationist scientist." Before I get the
Christers on my tail asking why I said this, I will lay out rather simply
why Creationism does not qualify as science. Creationism has
predefined results: that the Bible must be the literal inerrant truth.
Around this, in lieu of any real evidence and without any support backing
their basic premise, they make wild hypotheses that are generally based on
fundamental misunderstanding of scientific principles. Just as theology
cannot truly qualify as philosophy, so creationism cannot truly qualify as
science; heresy is disallowed. The charges may change, but never the
verdict.

: Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout


: history have been christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian

Yes, and a heretic, too. Mr. Newton was, in fact, an Arian, a precursor of
the modern sect of Unitarianism. The Arians, among their other heretical
beliefs, rejected the concept of the Trinity, and held that Jesus, while
divine, was the lesser rather than the equal of Yahweh the Father. Mr.
Newton was very interested in Biblical prophecies, especially those of
David and Revelations. His conclusions on many issues were similar to
those of the Seventh Day Adventists. There is a rather interesting article
about this and other aspects of Newton's personality in the most recent
Skeptical Enquirer. Interesting stuff.

Oh, boy! A Pascal's Wager!
: God has never been proven nor disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50


: chance on being correct about his exsistense.

Non sequitor. Just because something has been not yet been proven or
disproven does not delegate the possibilities to 50/50.

: The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie,


: I turn to dust at death and didn't count for anything.
: On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
: in a BIG way...

I'll leave the handling of the "didn't count for anything" to the
ethicists. Now then, for the "right = heaven/wrong = nothing" fluff.
The fallacy in this is bifurcation, or incorrectly stating only two
possibilities when there are many more. For instance, what if Yahweh does
exist, but he does like the ancient Hebrews thought he did, and just send
everyone to the shadowy land of Sheol? Or what if, in fact, a god exists,
but he doesn't care about we pathetic little humans? Or how about if
Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu are supreme? Get ready to spend yet another
lifetime on the wheel of karma...

Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)

---

Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator

---

Thought for the day:
"We sit outside and argue all night long
About a God we've never seen,
But never fails to side with me."
-- Primitive Radio Gods

Jim Carr

unread,
Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96
to

I wrote:
|
| Men of science spent several centuries trying to prove the Bible right.
| Only after a succession of about five different theories of evolution
| by special creation, each contradicted by new discoveries, did they
| find some success with theories based on natural selection.

Joseph Zorzin (red...@vgernet.net) wrote:
}
} Correct. Creationists would have their flocks believe that evolution is a
} dogmatic theory announced by Darwin and all modern science just blindly
} follows it.
}

} This falsehood shows how uninformed the creationists are.

jstr...@chem.utoronto.ca (Jacek Strzelczyk) writes:
>
> Except that natural selection dates back to Darwin, as do most parts
>of the theory of evolution.

^^^ ^^
that to explain

Darwin formulated a theory to explain evolution based on natural selection
after theories based on creation failed to explain the data. Since the
biologists avoid any mention of this history, to avoid any confrontation
with the beliefs of many of their students, most people are not aware of
it. However, the evolution of life had been accepted long before natural
selection was proposed as an explanation.

The earliest theory was built from the sequence described in part of
Genesis, was modified as more data came in to resemble some of the
ideas one sees in this thread about sequential creation over time,
but continued to run into blind alleys as more species were found
around the globe and more was learned about geologic history.

Anyway, the strongest evidence for evolution is from the experiment
being done in modern hospitals on the natural selection leading to a
species of bacteria that actually thrives on a powerful antibiotic.


--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Olympics report: whitewater slalom
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | and track&field were awesome in
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | person. Page with some of my
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | kayak photos will be coming soon.

dco...@cpursuit.com

unread,
Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96
to

If you are going to criticize people, please try to capitolize the B in
Bible.
---
Christian Pursuit -- Connecting you to Christ! ** New Users Welcome **
Telnet://CPursuit.Com Dial: 414.896.2660 http://www.cpursuit.com
Put Jesus Christ in His place .. YOUR life!


Jim Holmstrom

unread,
Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96
to Jerry Teach

Jerry Teach wrote:

> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>

> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout

> history have been christians... ...God has never been proven nor

> disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct
> about his exsistense.

Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has
to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.

> The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
> dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
>your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...

This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.

John Holmstrom

B

unread,
Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96
to

Well Pascals Wager or paradox. As has been pointed out before the whole
thing is contingent on a good God like you imagine. I may imagine
another God, who hasn't revealed himself yet, who sends all christians
to Hell and all other religious believers and atheists he lets into
Heaven. In which case you have a lot to lose by believing. As there is
no proof for either your God or my proposed God then Pascal's wager is a
poor argument for belief. Its better to believe on some other basis.

Bernhard Schopper

unread,
Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96
to

Jim Holmstrom <ji...@zzz.com> wrote:
>what do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to >lose by not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.


Substitute MIND for IMORTAL SOUL (sic), and you're dead on.

Bernie

Daniel A. Morgan

unread,
Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96
to Jim Carr

> Anyway, the strongest evidence for evolution is from the experiment
> being done in modern hospitals on the natural selection leading to a
> species of bacteria that actually thrives on a powerful antibiotic.

Anyone who would like to argue against evolution should certainly be
challenged to explain the flu and the HIV virus odn't you think? If they
can do that then we can graduate them to explaining blind fishes in
Mammoth Cave.

Daniel Morgan

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

In <N.080996....@196-7-124-165.iafrica.com> spw...@iafrica.com
(Sean Webb) writes:
>
>
...[snip]
>Sean Webb

>
>FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>
No. "Christian Scientist" is a cult. See Dr. Walter Martin's book
entitled "Kingdom of the Cults." It is neither Christian nor science.

Chris A Reiser

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<320DA3...@ix.netcom.com>...
[SNIP (with a big pair of scissors)]


>
> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history
have been

> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you
don't agree with
> the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by
claiming that

> only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor


disproven,
> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his

exsistense. The

> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust
at death and
> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in
alot of trouble
> in a BIG way...
>

> Jerry Teach
>

So, is your view totally on what happens after we die. What about the here
and now.
The arguments surrounding "Creation VS Evolution" and "Christian VS
Atheist"
have very much to do with our daily lives. How we live, what we strive
for, how we treat
other people, -- our philosophy of life. I have found that engineers,
scientists, and
other professions which strive to seek the truth, generally result in
kinder, gentler
people than the Christian Right or any church has ever produced.

I prefer atheists to Christians. They are more open minded, honest,
relaxed, etc. Anyway,
for me to become a Christian would be to deny many of the truths that I
have discovered
about life, friendship, science, the wonder of evolution, the amazing
beauty of nature, etc.
I feel that becoming a Christian would be a big step backwards morally,
intellectually, and
ethically for me. So, I think that by looking at today and tomorrow rather
than viewing
death as the ultimate goal, that I am better off.

__ Chris __

Gvwm...@netcom.com

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

>Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has
>to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
>Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.

if you're talking about schrodingers cat, you've assumed the
conclusion. if there is a box, the cat itself is the only thing which
knows whether it exists or not. it doesn't imply anything else at all.


Frank J. Warner

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

In article <320F85...@zzz.com>, Jim Holmstrom <ji...@zzz.com> wrote:

> Jerry Teach wrote:
[snip]


> > The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
> > dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
> >your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...
>

> This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in

> the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what

> do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
> not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.

Pascal's Paradox is an interesting experiment in logic, but it ignores the
larger point:

Q: What do you have to lose by believing in something that is patently
ridiculous?

A: The ability to look at oneself in the mirror each morning.

Brian Davison

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

> >
> > Sean Webb
> >
> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>
> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you don't agree with
> the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
> only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,
> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The

> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> in a BIG way...
>
> Jerry Teach

Just having two different opinions does not mean that both have a
fifty/fifty chance of being true! If for example my opinion is that the
fastest land animal is a Roadrunner, and you say a Rhino, if we are
both wrong then neither answer is right!

Therefore your suggestion is absurd... in all of the infinite
possibilities anybodie's opinions on creation has a less than minute
chance of being correct!

David Hultgren

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

Jim Holmstrom wrote:

>
> Jerry Teach wrote:
>
> > > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout
> > history have been christians... ...God has never been proven nor

> > disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct
> > about his exsistense.
>
> Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has
> to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
> Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.
>
> > The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
> > dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
> >your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...
>
> This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
> the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
> do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
> not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
>
> John Holmstrom

Its "Pascala wager", Its not valid since You can get into even bigger
dodo if You worship the wrong god.
Pascal just ignored all other alternatives besides the christian god vs
atheism.
--
David Hultgren
har...@plea.se
david.h...@ffvaerotech.ffv.se
http://www.plea.se/~hard.to

Jerry Teach

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

Brian Davison wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Sean Webb

> > >
> > > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
> >
> > Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
> > christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you don't agree with
> > the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
> > only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,
> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The

> > difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> > didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> > in a BIG way...
> >
> > Jerry Teach
>
> Just having two different opinions does not mean that both have a
> fifty/fifty chance of being true! If for example my opinion is that the
> fastest land animal is a Roadrunner, and you say a Rhino, if we are
> both wrong then neither answer is right!
>
> Therefore your suggestion is absurd... in all of the infinite
> possibilities anybodie's opinions on creation has a less than minute
> chance of being correct!


Okay, I stand corrected :] I was trying to make a point but used the wrong language to
get it across (actually faulty logic and bad mathmatics) as you and the others have been
telling me. I still believe that of all the beliefs the athiest gets the short end of
the stick if he's wrong, but like someone said in an earlier reply to my message, that
certainly would be the wrong reason to believe in God.

Tom Spain

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:

> No. "Christian Scientist" is a cult. See Dr. Walter Martin's book
>entitled "Kingdom of the Cults." It is neither Christian nor science.

Which is also an apt description for your own nonsensical rantings.

BYTE-TECH
technical services for business
Modesto, CA 209 531-1144
'first hour free' consulting services


Gvwm...@netcom.com

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

>> This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in
>> the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
>> do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
>> not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.
your teacher must have not looked up modern literature. simply from
the fact that you have to have access to such knowledge means in
itself risking something. Ie, one can get depressed by being told
violent things or that things they do are wrong. pascal falls apart
there. Also, which zeus do you want to believe in odin, god, yahweh,
satan, ect ect.?and then when they ask for money or tax exemption
you've lost ALOT MORE THAN NOTHING.

Gvwm...@netcom.com

unread,
Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96
to

>> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
>> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian.

newton would have been stoned had he stated his actual opinions.

Dan Evens

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

Please remove the sci.physics and alt.sci.physics heirarchies of news groups
from this thread when you reply to it. It is grossly off topic. Thank you.
Dan Evens

Charles W. Johnson

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:

: >> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history


: >> have been christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian.
: newton would have been stoned had he stated his actual opinions.

Indeed. As I stated in an earlier response to this post, Newton was a
verifiable heretic. Sir Isaac was a member of a denomination known as the
Arians, a precursor of the Unitarians, who denied the trinity. Newton's
interpretations of Biblical prophecies (esp. those of Daniel and
Revelations) were close to the modern day Seventh Day Adventists. And
although he probably would not be stoned, he would have certainly lost his
job as mathematics professor at Cambridge, in (ironically) Trinity
College.

Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)

--
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator
--

These opinions are mine. They may not be those of my employer. They are almost
certainly not those of the Christian Coalition.
--
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list.
Violators will have complaints sent to their postmasters. Die, you spamming
SCUM!
--
"A lot of Christians wears crosses around their necks. Do you think that when
Christ returns, the first thing he's going to want to see is another fucking
cross?!?" - Bill Hicks

Aaron Bergman

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

In article <320F85...@zzz.com>, Jim Holmstrom <ji...@zzz.com> wrote:

:Jerry Teach wrote:
:
:> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
:>
:> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout
:> history have been christians... ...God has never been proven nor

:> disproven, therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct
:> about his exsistense.

:
:Actualy, modern physics (namely quantum mechanics) shows that their has

:to be some kind of "Cosmic Concious" (I don't have a dictionary handy).
:Anyone wanting more (it gets kinda crazy) I'll post it.

Oh please do.

Aaron
:
:> The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to

:> dust at death and didn't count for anything. On > the other hand, if
:>your wrong... Your in alot of trouble in a BIG way...

:
:This is called (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a while since I was in

:the class that we talked about this in) "Pascal's Paradox." Namely, what
:do you have to loose by believing, NOTHING. What do you have to lose by
:not, YOUR IMORTAL SOUL.

Pascal's wager, actually. There are numerous flaws in it. I'll point out
one. Which religion should I believe in?

Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/abergman.html>
The quote left intentionally blank.

Scott Thomson

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

<I cut the rest>

> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his

> > exsistense. The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no

> > biggie, I turn to dust at death and didn't count for anything. On the
> > other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble > > in a BIG way...
> >

> > Jerry Teach

Although I would argue with the 50/50 chance I won't here, as it would
seem rather pointless, but don't you think that fear of post-mortem
persecution by your god is a rather pathetic and spineless reason to
demonstrate to the world your "faith" in your belief. I don't care what
you believe but people should at least have the guts to stand up for
there convictions without fear,--- or is that what your little book tells
you to do??

Scott

=========================================================================
Scott Thomson | Tel : (06)201 2937 Fax: (06)201 5030
Applied Ecology Research Group | Mail: P.O. Box 1
University of Canberra | BELCONNEN ACT 2616 AUSTRALIA
=========================================================================


Dr Andrew J. Doherty

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

Jerry Teach wrote:
>
> Sean Webb wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 03 Aug 96 10:26:38 GMT, spw...@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) wrote:
> > > :>BTW i was brought up with the BIBLE and have gone through it cover to cover
> > > :>more times than i care to count.
> > > :>In my humble opinion it is a collection of stories that have been modified , not
> > > by
> > > :>divine guidance , but by biased translations & chinese whispers. There is
> > > some
> > > :>truth , but what parts i cannot say.
> > > :>
> > > :>> Have a nice day!
> > > :>>
> > > :>same to you
> > > :>
> > > :>Sean Webb
> > > :>[alt.sci.physics.new-theories]
> > > :>
> > >
> > > Hi Sean,
> > > Now I would be interested if you would look at the Bible Numerics
> > > section in www.http://trf.org.au
> > > It claims proof of inspiration of the scriptures.
> > >
> > > Go,
> > > Paul
> >
> > 'Claims' being the operative word.
> >
> > Sean Webb
> >
> > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>
> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history have been
> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian. Just because you don't agree with
> the theology of christianity don't make yourself out to be ignorant by claiming that
> only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,

> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> in a BIG way...
>
> Jerry Teach
Hi, I've just come across this thread and find it a seriously depressing
one. Religion and science are simply two ways of looking at and
interpreting the world we live in. The only thing which differentiates
science from religion is the fact that a scientific theory produces
predictions which can be tested objectively (relatively!!). However,
this does not necessarily mean that a religious approach is without
validity. Humans are undoubtably spiritual beings. We don't like to
think about the world as a purely rational place - just see how many
people, who are anything but religious, believe in astrology. It simply
means that those who do believe in a Christian God require some external
focus for their fears, to know that there is a reason for us being here
in the first place. Personally, I'm quite happy at the thought that I'm
here purely by accident, that I will live my life as I think I should
and that when I die, I will turn to dust and fertilise the ground I'm
buried in. What I object to - and this applies to both sides of this
argument - is being told that what I think is *absolutely* wrong ie,
that there is an absolute TRUTH out there. Well there isn't, just a
series of different philosophies by which we can make sense of a
senseless world. None is more true than any other. And that's my
twopennethworth.

Oh and by the way - if you believe in God, then you believe in God. I
think it was Pascal who first came up with this idea that if you were a
gambling man, then you would choose to believe in God, because you had
nothing to lose but everything to gain. But doesn't that smack to much
rationality and not faith?
--
***********************************************
Dr Andrew Doherty
Department of Anatomy
School of Medical Sciences
University Walk
Bristol
UK
BS8 1TD

e-mail Doh...@bsa.bristol.ac.uk

************************************************

User

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

>>God has never been proven nor disproven,
>> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
>> difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
>> didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
>> in a BIG way...
*snip*

>Oh and by the way - if you believe in God, then you believe in God. I
>think it was Pascal who first came up with this idea that if you were a
>gambling man, then you would choose to believe in God, because you had
>nothing to lose but everything to gain. But doesn't that smack to much
>rationality and not faith?
>--


Yes, that's Pascal's Wager, and it's pretty incredible that theists still
use it to justify their faith. I hear it so much, though, I had to
respond.

I am an atheist. But if I followed this reasoning, and adhered to the
Bible because it was a "good bet," would I be saved? I doubt it. An
omniscient God would know that my only motive for following His words was
to save my own skin, just in case I was initially wrong, and he *did*
exist. I'd surely go to hell one way or the other. God, if He exists, is
nothing if not perceptive. To be honest, Pascal's Wager is completely
useless, and, if accepted, would only result in a superficial faith.

Additionally, why should Pascal's Wager only apply to Christianity?
Shouldn't I also believe in Zeus, Shiva, Osiris, etc. to ensure that I'll
go to heaven? I could be wrong about atheism, but if I embrace
Christianity because of Pascal's Wager, I could be wrong about my chosen
type of faith as well.

Please, theists, give this argument up. It's just stupid. There are much
more interesting and valid lines of argument to pursue.


Scott Syoen
sms...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu


Siegfried

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

Pascal's Wager is a foolish basis for faith. But it can be useful as
reassurance for someone who wants to be become a Christian but finds he or
she has doubts that they know are unfounded and illogical and just needs
to know that it is a "safe" thing to do so that they can maybe muster a
little more courage to do what they know is right.
-Siegfried


Bill Gascoyne

unread,
Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96
to

> God has never been proven nor disproven,
> therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense.
[Pascal's wager paraphrase snipped]
> Jerry Teach

Actually, no, because there are far more than just two possibilities. The
expectations of your simple statement "God exists" imply far more than just the
existence of a supreme being. For example, you require that God is male. What
if God is female, or without gender? Or does not meddle in the affairs of humans?

If God exists, It might be nothing like your religion's expectations,
whereas all possible permutations of "God does not exist" are covered by the
atheist's POV. Therefore, your "odds" (if they can be calculated at all) of being
right about God are far lower that 50%.

P.S. Several newsgroups snipped (e.g. sci.bio.misc? sci.geo.geology?).

---

Bill Gascoyne ----- Speak for them?
LSI Logic Corp. LSI |LOGIC| They hardly even
1501 McCarthy Blvd. | | listen to me!
MS E-197 -----
Milpitas, CA 95035 LSI addr: gascan@dcst16 internet: gas...@lsil.com

frank dever

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

Scott Thomson <tho...@aerg.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

><I cut the rest>


>
>> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his

>> > exsistense. The difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no
>> > biggie, I turn to dust at death and didn't count for anything. On the
>> > other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble > > in a BIG way...
>> >

>> > Jerry Teach
>
>Although I would argue with the 50/50 chance I won't here, as it would
>seem rather pointless, but don't you think that fear of post-mortem
>persecution by your god is a rather pathetic and spineless reason to
>demonstrate to the world your "faith" in your belief. I don't care what
>you believe but people should at least have the guts to stand up for
>there convictions without fear,--- or is that what your little book tells
>you to do??
>
>Scott
>
>

Scott,

It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
respectability. They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
fine set of threads,why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice
flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
unbeliever sees nothing anyway.

"What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
deceive."

And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says. No. That's
not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love God above
all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that you believe
"Jesus died for my sins." . You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!! or PROVE
it!! Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
that God has done for you.

BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
the universe was created any differently than science currently
estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
them both!

dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.

-frank


>
>
>
>=========================================================================
>Scott Thomson | Tel : (06)201 2937 Fax: (06)201 5030
>Applied Ecology Research Group | Mail: P.O. Box 1
>University of Canberra | BELCONNEN ACT 2616 AUSTRALIA
>=========================================================================
>

-----
I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong.
How can that be? It's a miracle!

Jerry Teach

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

>
> It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
> enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
> respectability. They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
> fine set of threads,why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
> they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice

First of all I've admitted that the odds would be considerably less than 50\50 in
various other replys, if you would bother to read the preceding thread before posting
your jibberish you wouldn't look quite so foolish. As for scientific respectability, I
could care less. The persoanl experiences I have had and fullfilled biblical prophesies
I have read lead me to believe in God without the need of science giving it's rubber
stamp of approval. The fact that creation evidence to me is far superior to the
evolutionist argument is just icing on the cake and more reason to believe. However,
even if the laws of science contradicted the possibility of God I would serve him still.
I don't expect you to agree and actually I could care less, my faith doesn't require
your approval anymore than yours requires mine.

flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
> responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
> you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
> else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
> clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
> unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>

I believe the creationists views are valid, you don't agree... Prove it! don't babble
with some strange parables about clothing... I love the way some of you generalize and
group christians into one large fit all catagory. Not all mind you, I've had some very
intelligent, decent, kind athiests present their views without catagorizing or
slandering or bad mouthing the christian faith. Believe me, I listen to what they say.
On the contrary, their are the angry, self rightous athiests such as yourself who for
some unknown reason feel that it is your job to hand christians their heads. You will
probably come back with something to the effect of "your the self rightous ones craming
your God down our throats" Let me remind you that all people are of different mindsets,
personalitys etc.. there are rude christians and there are rude athiests... people are
indeed people... not mindless clones.


> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
> deceive."

I niether attempt or practice to decieve anyone. It is my opinion that if you don't find
Christ, it's your loss. I'm sure you have a simular feeling about christians. I wont
waste my time shoving anything down your throat. My time is much to valuble. I'll spend
the extra time teaching someone who is genuinly seeking the Lord.

>
> And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
> political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
> retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says. No. That's
> not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love God above
> all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that you believe
> "Jesus died for my sins." . You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!! or PROVE
> it!! Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
> your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
> still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
> that God has done for you.
>

I really didn't understand your line of reasoning above. I'll attempt to dicipher the
ranting however. No I don't have to prove that Jesus died for your sins... he said it,
you either believe it or reject it, your choice, I already made mine. I have no reason
to hang my head in shame. I'm quite happy with the person I am today and I believe
Christ has made me much happier and has made me a more self reliant, disciplined, and
patient person. Again, I don't have to prove that to you nor do I feel a need to do it.
Yes, I'm quite a bit better and yes, God has done good things for me.



> BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
> the universe was created any differently than science currently
> estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
> Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
> them both!
>
> dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
>

Excuse me?? Isn't that the reason for these types of newsgroups? Debate? That's the only
messages that I find discussed here... I originally subscribed to this ng to discuss
bible prophesy (alt.bible.prophesy) a week ago. After reading for several days I noticed
that athiest vs christian was the unproclaimed topic here. cross posting gone bananas.
Anyhow, since that is what's being discussed I don't think it would be quite fair for
the athiests to lecture and the christians to respond with posts like: "UH OKAY, UH HUH"
That could get a bit boring on both sides of the fence and you wouldn't get a chance to
rant and rave and babble... Oh, I loved that part about me not having the brains for
it.. you know me so well...Your coming to my wedding next week right? (sheesh) Your
generalizing and claiming my intelligence is low is quite an astounding act to pull off
considering we've never met. Science is all there is??? What a narrow little world you
live in... Science is simply a method for answering questions... not a religon although
some would see it that way. I can see holes in both the creationists model as well as
the evolutionist model. You simply see what you want to see. Science is supposed to be
open to all possibilitys isn't it? You seem to be the type of person that would deny God
to his face. If I could give you unquestionable scientific proof that all the worlds
scientists agreed on (hypothetical situation in progress) would you still deny it? Just
how would you react? I'm afraid that probably you would. You don't want to have to be
accountable for your life or your actions? (just guessing here) Is that why you deny any
views other than those you choose to see?

to quote your message: "Dingbats....everywhere dingbats...

Jerry Teach

Jerry Teach

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to
> > only atheists have a handle on science. God has never been proven nor disproven,

> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his exsistense. The
> > difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to dust at death and
> > didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in alot of trouble
> > in a BIG way...
> >
> > Jerry Teach
> Hi, I've just come across this thread and find it a seriously depressing
> one. Religion and science are simply two ways of looking at and
> interpreting the world we live in. The only thing which differentiates
> science from religion is the fact that a scientific theory produces
> predictions which can be tested objectively (relatively!!). However,
> this does not necessarily mean that a religious approach is without
> validity. Humans are undoubtably spiritual beings. We don't like to
> think about the world as a purely rational place - just see how many
> people, who are anything but religious, believe in astrology. It simply
> means that those who do believe in a Christian God require some external
> focus for their fears, to know that there is a reason for us being here
> in the first place. Personally, I'm quite happy at the thought that I'm
> here purely by accident, that I will live my life as I think I should
> and that when I die, I will turn to dust and fertilise the ground I'm
> buried in. What I object to - and this applies to both sides of this
> argument - is being told that what I think is *absolutely* wrong ie,
> that there is an absolute TRUTH out there. Well there isn't, just a
> series of different philosophies by which we can make sense of a
> senseless world. None is more true than any other. And that's my
> twopennethworth.
>
> Oh and by the way - if you believe in God, then you believe in God. I
> think it was Pascal who first came up with this idea that if you were a
> gambling man, then you would choose to believe in God, because you had
> nothing to lose but everything to gain. But doesn't that smack to much
> rationality and not faith?
> --
> ***********************************************
> Dr Andrew Doherty
> Department of Anatomy
> School of Medical Sciences
> University Walk
> Bristol
> UK
> BS8 1TD
>
> e-mail Doh...@bsa.bristol.ac.uk
>
> ************************************************

Hi, it's rather late where I'm at and I just finished a rather long
reply to someone else so I wont be trying to reply to yours tonight but
I wanted to say thank you for the dignified and kind response. I see
that we disagree but it's nice to disagree amiably. I'm of the mindset
that athiest and christians (and everyone else in the world) should be
able to get along regardless of opposing beliefs or skin colors. Have a
good one!

God Bless (I know ya don't believe in it but what the heck it's not
painfull :]

Jerry Teach

t-files

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

cw...@eskimo.com (Charles W. Johnson) wrote:

>Gvwm...@netcom.com wrote:

>: >> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history
Off topic for sci.geo.geology, please trim your newsgroups & followup.
This newsgroup is for geological sciences and closely related topics.

Sorry but please note that the geology group is currently having
problems as a result of too many cross postings.


t-files

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Brian Davison wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > Sean Webb
>> > >
>> > > FYI the term 'Christian Scientist' is an oxymoron.
>> >

dco...@cpursuit.com

unread,
Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96
to

GV>>> Some of the greatest scientific minds in the world and throughout history
GV>>> christians... ever heard of Issac Newton? A christian.
GV>newton would have been stoned had he stated his actual opinions.

Well, we Christians are told that because we are Christians, the world
will hate us.
Don't remember exactly where in the Bible that is. I'll have to look
into that.
---
Christian Pursuit -- Connecting you to Christ! ** New Users Welcome **
Telnet://CPursuit.Com Dial: 414.896.2660 http://www.cpursuit.com
Put Jesus Christ in His place .. YOUR life!


frank dever

unread,
Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96
to

Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>
>> It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
>> enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
>> respectability. They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a
>> fine set of threads,why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so
>> they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice
>
>First of all I've admitted that the odds would be considerably less than 50\50 in
>various other replys, if you would bother to read the preceding thread before posting
>your jibberish you wouldn't look quite so foolish.

Oh, I'm sorry.. you make up "considerably less than 50/50"
rules.

>As for scientific respectability, I
>could care less.

Obviously.

> The persoanl experiences I have had and fullfilled biblical prophesies
>I have read lead me to believe in God without the need of science giving it's rubber
>stamp of approval.

So you don't care that evolution is taught in every school in
the nation? And it is almost unanimously accepted as the best
explanation for the mechanism for the variety of life?

>The fact that creation evidence to me is far superior to the
>evolutionist argument is just icing on the cake and more reason to believe.

The only evidence you have for creation is your belief. Your
belief is giving you more reason to believe, not evidence.

>However,
>even if the laws of science contradicted the possibility of God I would serve him still.

And so you should. And so do people who believe in evolution.

>I don't expect you to agree and actually I could care less, my faith doesn't require
>your approval anymore than yours requires mine.

I didn't say it did. However, there are many forces today
requiring my approval of creationism... and thereby their particular
denomination's translation of the bible.

>
> flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
>> responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
>> you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
>> else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
>> clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
>> unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>>
>I believe the creationists views are valid, you don't agree... Prove it! don't babble
>with some strange parables about clothing... I love the way some of you generalize and
>group christians into one large fit all catagory.

Not christians - young earth creationists.

>Not all mind you, I've had some very
>intelligent, decent, kind athiests present their views without catagorizing or
>slandering or bad mouthing the christian faith. Believe me, I listen to what they say.
>On the contrary, their are the angry, self rightous athiests such as yourself who for

I am not an atheist. I am a Christian.

>some unknown reason feel that it is your job to hand christians their heads.

I'd hand you yours, but I can't find it. If this is your
example for me to follow, I'd say I was doing pretty well by
comparison.

>You will
>probably come back with something to the effect of "your the self rightous ones craming
>your God down our throats"

So much for mind reading.

>Let me remind you that all people are of different mindsets,

I love it.

>personalitys etc.. there are rude christians and there are rude athiests... people are
>indeed people... not mindless clones.

Absolutely!

>
>
>> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
>> deceive."
>
>I niether attempt or practice to decieve anyone.

It seems to me that it is yourself that you are practicing on.

>It is my opinion that if you don't find
>Christ, it's your loss. I'm sure you have a simular feeling about christians.

Actually, that's not how I feel at all. I joke about hell, but
when someone actually believes in eternal torment (as you apparently
do) and they tell someone else that they expect to believe it as well,
that they are going there.. it's just a little morbid and
mean-spirited, don't you think?

>I wont
>waste my time shoving anything down your throat. My time is much to valuble. I'll spend
>the extra time teaching someone who is genuinly seeking the Lord.

Right, preach to the choir - like Jesus did.


>
>>
>> And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
>> political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
>> retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says. No. That's
>> not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love God above
>> all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that you believe
>> "Jesus died for my sins." . You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!! or PROVE
>> it!! Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>> your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>> still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>> that God has done for you.
>>
>I really didn't understand your line of reasoning above. I'll attempt to dicipher the
>ranting however. No I don't have to prove that Jesus died for your sins... he said it,
>you either believe it or reject it, your choice, I already made mine. I have no reason
>to hang my head in shame. I'm quite happy with the person I am today and I believe
>Christ has made me much happier and has made me a more self reliant, disciplined, and
>patient person. Again, I don't have to prove that to you nor do I feel a need to do it.
>Yes, I'm quite a bit better and yes, God has done good things for me.

That is no reason to leave your brain at the church door.


>
>> BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
>> the universe was created any differently than science currently
>> estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
>> Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
>> them both!
>>
>> dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
>>
>Excuse me?? Isn't that the reason for these types of newsgroups? Debate? That's the only
>messages that I find discussed here... I originally subscribed to this ng to discuss
>bible prophesy (alt.bible.prophesy) a week ago. After reading for several days I noticed
>that athiest vs christian was the unproclaimed topic here. cross posting gone bananas.
>Anyhow, since that is what's being discussed I don't think it would be quite fair for
>the athiests to lecture and the christians to respond with posts like: "UH OKAY, UH HUH"

or "bananas are the source of gravity!"

or "the cucumber theory of black holes explains creationism
neatly"

>That could get a bit boring on both sides of the fence and you wouldn't get a chance to
>rant and rave and babble... Oh, I loved that part about me not having the brains for
>it.. you know me so well...Your coming to my wedding next week right? (sheesh) Your
>generalizing and claiming my intelligence is low is quite an astounding act to pull off
>considering we've never met. Science is all there is??? What a narrow little world you
>live in... Science is simply a method for answering questions... not a religon although
>some would see it that way. I can see holes in both the creationists model as well as
>the evolutionist model. You simply see what you want to see. Science is supposed to be
>open to all possibilitys isn't it? You seem to be the type of person that would deny God
>to his face. If I could give you unquestionable scientific proof that all the worlds
>scientists agreed on (hypothetical situation in progress) would you still deny it?

Scientific proof that they agree? No. Scientific proof that
the earth is only 6000 years old? Yes, of course I'd believe it. But I
won't accept the genealogies of the bible as proof.

>Just
>how would you react?

I'd be a little upset, seeing thousands of years of physics
refuted. But I wouldn't refuse to accept the stituation. As you have
done.

>I'm afraid that probably you would.

No reason to be afraid - I wouldn't buck unquestionable
scientific proof. I would agree.

>You don't want to have to be
>accountable for your life or your actions? (just guessing here) Is that why you deny any
>views other than those you choose to see?

No, Sigmund.

>
>to quote your message: "Dingbats....everywhere dingbats...

Isn't it the truth? <g>
>
>Jerry Teach

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96
to

In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
dever) writes:
>
...[snip]

>
> It's not as simple as that. Courage of one's faith is not
>enough. Today's Christian is also concerned with scientific
>respectability.

Today's Christian is also concerned for scientific, historical, and
philosophical truth.


They figure if Satan can go out on the street with a

>fine set of threads, why can't they? So they have to make up stuff so


>they can play with the big guys. So they make up 50/50 rules... ice

>flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
>responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them, as
>you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no one
>else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them, they are
>clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond faith, the
>unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>

> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
>deceive."
>

> And that is what is going on. As if the bible is some kind of
>political manuscript, that you can modify through scientific
>retranslation so that everyone will believe what it says.


No, you don't mean "retranslation" that is something else,
according to theologians and scholars who study ancient manuscripts
written in different languages. You mean "reinterpretation" of the
Bible to fit a particular belief.

>No. That's not how it works. You can't get away without saying "Love
>God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself." And say that

>you believe "Jesus died for my sins." You don't have to JUSTIFY IT!!
>or PROVE it!!

That is because they have accepted those ancient manuscripts. You
don't believe what is written in them.


>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>that God has done for you.

This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.

>
> BUT Don't try to convince us that there was a flood - or that
>the universe was created any differently than science currently
>estimates.. with math! You don't have the brains for it! No one does!!
>Science is all there is. And then there's faith. Mix em and forget
>them both!

If science is "all that there is," what happen to the poetry of
Robert Frost? Science is not all of knowledge (epistemology).

>
> dingbats, everywhere. Dingbats.
>
> -frank

Oh, Frankenstein! Isn't that name-calling too? <just kidding>
;-)


frank dever

unread,
Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96
to

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

>In article <4v51bc$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) writes:
>>In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
>>dever) writes:
>>>
>>>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>>>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>>>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>>>that God has done for you.
>>
>> This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.

No way! I have heard MANY testimonies in which a person has
called himself a "wretch" which is no less a jerk.. and that they were
saved by grace, and nothing else, nothing done by themselves,
therefore they are not one bit better except for the good things God
has done for them.

Saying it's name calling is refuting the gospel.

-frank
>>
>I feel compelled to add my two pennies worth here, not to comment on
>anything, rather to issue a statement. I'm very marginally involved
>in this thread (a comment here and there, no more) coming to it, as I
>stated clearly, from the agnostic side. Though being quite off topic
>(but, hey, that's almost a tradition here) it could've been an
>interesting intellectual argument. Unfortunately most of it is
>conducted at a gutter level, where attempts to demean the opponent
>completely replaced any resemblence of coherence. And I have to admit
>(I would almost say "with shame" but no, I cannot feel ashamed for the
>behavior of others, even if superficially they seem to share my views)
>that most of the worst trangressions come from the atheist/agnostic
>camp. It is indeed rare to see so many messages spewing pure hatred
>as in this case. Carmen, above, calls it "propaganda and name
>calling" but this is an understatement.
>
>So, I'm not going to have anything more to do with this thread and,
>Carmen, I would advise you to do just the same. If you're looking for
>a mature argument with mature people, this is obviously not the place.
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96
to

In <3212EE...@ix.netcom.com> Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
...[snip]

>First of all I've admitted that the odds would be considerably less
>than 50\50 in various other replys, if you would bother to read the
>preceding thread before posting your jibberish you wouldn't look quite
>so foolish. As for scientific respectability, I could care less.

Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if it
claims to be the truth. As a physicist and theologian, I would
disagree with you that respectability is not important. ;-)

>The persoanl experiences I have had and fullfilled biblical prophecies


>I have read lead me to believe in God without the need of science
>giving it's rubber stamp of approval.

This last statement is true. You have open up two NEW topics to
this debate: personal experiences and Biblical prophecies. However,
the agnostic and atheist will not what to listen to these topics, and
besides, prophecies are for the Christian believers. [Christians know
this: God talks to His soldiers and keeps them informed to His plans
and nearness of events. (e.g., Matthew 24:4-29)]


>The fact that creation evidence to me is far superior to the
>evolutionist argument is just icing on the cake and more reason to
>believe. However, even if the laws of science contradicted the
>possibility of God I would serve him still.

That is because you and I know Him. Jesus knows his sheep, and his
sheep know Him. ;-)



>I don't expect you to agree and actually I could care less, my faith
>doesn't require your approval anymore than yours requires mine.
>
> flows and comets for storing flood waters.. In a way, they feel
>> responsible for darning the clothes of the Lord. (or damning them,
>> as you may see it). If they don't clothe him in silk, they figure no
>> one else will. The irony that non-believers see is that to them,
>> they are clothing a god who doesn't exist with no clothes. Beyond
>> faith, the unbeliever sees nothing anyway.
>>
>I believe the creationists views are valid, you don't agree... Prove
>it! don't babble with some strange parables about clothing... I love
>the way some of you generalize and group christians into one large fit
>all catagory. Not all mind you, I've had some very intelligent,

>decent, kind atheists present their views without catagorizing or

>slandering or bad mouthing the christian faith. Believe me, I listen
>to what they say.

Right, you are. I have a mathematician friend who is a pantheist
and who equates God with the forces of nature. Other friends of mine
are atheists. We all get along fine.


>On the contrary, their are the angry, self rightous athiests such as
>yourself who for some unknown reason feel that it is your job to hand
>christians their heads.

And I know some Christians who want to hand other Christians their
heads too. What a world in which we live!!!

>You will probably come back with something to the effect of "your the
>self rightous ones craming your God down our throats" Let me remind

>you that all people are of different mindsets, personalities, etc..

You are right again. This is called one's worldview in
anthropology.

>there are rude christians and there are rude athiests... people are
>indeed people... not mindless clones.


>> "What a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to
>> deceive."
>
>I niether attempt or practice to decieve anyone. It is my opinion that
>if you don't find Christ, it's your loss.

He/she is lost, because you know and accept what is written in the
Scriptures about Christ and the means of salvation.

>I'm sure you have a simular feeling about christians. I wont waste my
>time shoving anything down your throat. My time is much to valuble.
>I'll spend the extra time teaching someone who is genuinly seeking the
>Lord.
>

Ditto.

Well, Jerry, I am over here in sci.physics, and I do enjoy the
discussion. Question: "prophecy" is a noun, and "prophesy" is a verb.
Shouldn't it be alt.bible.prophecy as a newsgroup? Who set up that ng?
Or are you folks uttering prophecies in that ng which I should read?
:-)

> After reading for several days I noticed
>that athiest vs christian was the unproclaimed topic here. cross
>posting gone bananas. Anyhow, since that is what's being discussed I
>don't think it would be quite fair for the athiests to lecture and the
>christians to respond with posts like: "UH OKAY, UH HUH"
>That could get a bit boring on both sides of the fence and you
>wouldn't get a chance to rant and rave and babble... Oh, I loved that
>part about me not having the brains for it.. you know me so
>well...Your coming to my wedding next week right? (sheesh) Your
>generalizing and claiming my intelligence is low is quite an
>astounding act to pull off considering we've never met.

I have seen other Christians do that to others as well. Check out
Mr. Cagle. He is impressive with words.


>Science is all there is??? What a narrow little world you
>live in... Science is simply a method for answering questions... not a
>religon although some would see it that way. I can see holes in both
>the creationists model as well as the evolutionist model.

That is because there are models of creationism -- i.e., there is
more than one interpretation of Genesis and the accounts written
therein.

>You simply see what you want to see. Science is supposed to be
>open to all possibilitys isn't it? You seem to be the type of person
>that would deny God to his face. If I could give you unquestionable
>scientific proof that all the worlds scientists agreed on
>(hypothetical situation in progress) would you still deny it? Just
>how would you react? I'm afraid that probably you would. You don't
>want to have to be accountable for your life or your actions? (just
>guessing here) Is that why you deny any views other than those you
>choose to see?

You mean accountable to Almighty God!


>to quote your message: "Dingbats....everywhere dingbats...
>
>Jerry Teach

Thanks for this enjoyable reading, Jerry!


me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96
to

In article <4v51bc$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) writes:
>In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
>dever) writes:
>>
>>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
>>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
>>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
>>that God has done for you.
>
> This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.
>

Carmen Toledo

unread,
Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96
to

In <DwAvo...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
...[snip]

>I feel compelled to add my two pennies worth here, not to comment on
>anything, rather to issue a statement. I'm very marginally involved
>in this thread (a comment here and there, no more) coming to it, as I
>stated clearly, from the agnostic side.

Oh, Mati. I was an agnostic until age 25. ;-)

>Though being quite off topic
>(but, hey, that's almost a tradition here) it could've been an
>interesting intellectual argument. Unfortunately most of it is
>conducted at a gutter level, where attempts to demean the opponent
>completely replaced any resemblence of coherence. And I have to admit
>(I would almost say "with shame" but no, I cannot feel ashamed for the
>behavior of others, even if superficially they seem to share my views)
>that most of the worst trangressions come from the atheist/agnostic
>camp. It is indeed rare to see so many messages spewing pure hatred
>as in this case. Carmen, above, calls it "propaganda and name
>calling" but this is an understatement.
>
>So, I'm not going to have anything more to do with this thread and,
>Carmen, I would advise you to do just the same. If you're looking for
>a mature argument with mature people, this is obviously not the place.

Mati, I didn't originate this subject. It came into sci.physics,
and everyone responded to it. Mature people? There are a few.


Michael Noreen

unread,
Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96
to

Replying to Eliyahweh <eli...@execpc.com>

:
: The argument about the drifting continents is in reference to the
: mid-Atlantic ridge where core samples reveal an alternating magnetic field
: which they dates as every 10,000 years. Clearly I do not believe this
: 10,000-year cycle because the span of the Atlantic would probably
: out-date the solar system itself.

That's clever of you, since the frequency isn't at all 10000 years. It
is on average 1.5 million years, varying wildly. Lately the frequency
has been about 100000 years; each flip takes a couple of thousand
years. They do not appear to be linked to mass extinctions. Sorry.

MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."

Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to

any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!


Judson McClendon

unread,
Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96
to

Eliyahweh wrote:
[snip]

> The argument about the drifting continents is in reference to the
> mid-Atlantic ridge where core samples reveal an alternating magnetic field
> which they dates as every 10,000 years. Clearly I do not believe this
> 10,000-year cycle because the span of the Atlantic would probably
> out-date the solar system itself. Yet I would look for a correction-curve
> and instinct would imply this gap called the Atlantic Ocean is NOT the
> pushing apart of two worlds in one mere year. Thus with the 3rd day
> of creation (32,000 -25,000 BC) the rise of these plates occurred
> giving them their distinct differences (land plates versus ocean plates).
[snip]

A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." I think Peleg was
about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of
Babel. Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over
the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents? It would
seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those
continents in the first place.
--
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems
Email: juds...@ix.netcom.com

Brian Roberson

unread,
Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96
to

> > God has never been proven nor disproven,
> > therefore we both have a 50/50 chance on being correct about his
exsistense. The
> > difference lays in the fact that if I'm wrong, no biggie, I turn to
dust at death and
> > didn't count for anything. On the other hand, if your wrong... Your in
alot of trouble
> > in a BIG way...


Actually, you show your ignorance in claiming you have a fifty-fifty
chance to go to heaven. Even looking past the scant evidence in favor of
god, there are many other chances that may be right. Why do you discount
the other gods? Allah could exist, in which case you go to hell. The god
of the bible is not very nice. He could just decide to send everyone to
hell. Or, god could decide to only let those into heaven who have stood
up for themselves and declared themselves atheism. Fifty-fifty indeed.
Brian

Eliyahweh

unread,
Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96
to

Problem with society is that they view 10-20 years as a good amount
of time for evidence. But grow too fast and you can die fast too.

>> I have a book by Stahler (Promethus Publishers) very deep as
>> regard college physics...and it attacks creationists. Thus the book shows
>> me the idiotic examples creationists fabricate to defend God. God
>> certainly deserves better. I too find it very hard to believe that
>> Pangaea split apart in a single year (the Flood).

> The splitting of Pangaea is, as I understand it, supposed to be caused
>by movement of the plates on which the continents "ride." Continental
>drift is supposed to be an ongoing, slow process. Stresses caused by
>one plate riding over another are supposedly released from time to time
>in earthquake events. This fits neatly with the fact that certain areas
>(like California) have frequent earthquakes.

The argument about the drifting continents is in reference to the
mid-Atlantic ridge where core samples reveal an alternating magnetic field
which they dates as every 10,000 years. Clearly I do not believe this
10,000-year cycle because the span of the Atlantic would probably
out-date the solar system itself. Yet I would look for a correction-curve
and instinct would imply this gap called the Atlantic Ocean is NOT the
pushing apart of two worlds in one mere year. Thus with the 3rd day
of creation (32,000 -25,000 BC) the rise of these plates occurred
giving them their distinct differences (land plates versus ocean plates).

>> > Researchers 300 years ago didn't refer to Pangaea. Nor did they
>> >refer to carbon-14 dating, plate techtonics, writings of Charles Darwin,
>> >etc. Three hundred years ago they weren't aware of these things.
>> >And your point was ... ?????

C-14 was discovered thru nuclear testing after World War 2....
I think Libby wrote his research in 1956 [?]....
(lot of important world-changing things happened that year besides my birth)

>> That knowledge should be presented as NEW concepts which they are.
>> What about the OLD concepts....as in Noah's Flood created the Ice Age
>> which existed AFTER the Flood only.

> It is generally accepted in the scientific community that new ideas
>can and do force us to modify or abandon old ideas. Since knowledge is
>written down and passed from generation to generation, it is cummulative;
>it also requires "housecleaning" and discarding of old ideas when they
>are clearly invalid.
> The oft-cited example of this in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific
>Revolutions" is the phlogiston theory of fire. Phlogiston was basically
>the old Greek idea that fire was an element. Once fire was understood
>as a chemical reaction (rapid oxidation) the phlogiston theory was thrown
>away.
> There are many old ideas which have been discarded:
> Diseases are caused by "bad air" (root of the word 'malaria').
> Disease can be caused by witches (thankfully, we no longer try people
> for witchcraft like they did in Salem in 1692).
> Spontaneous generation of life, e.g. a horsehair that falls into water
> can spontaneously turn into a living worm.
> The sun revolves around the earth.

VERY GOOD EXAMPLES...however be aware of the fact that when these OLD
theories had been created millenia ago...there were those who opposed
thru natural logic. That is the war between Moses and Egypts schools,
the same war I fight. I was taught the lie that Columbus' world said the
world was flat. Did Europe forget the Greeks calculated the sphere !
Rather not until the big 500-year holiday do they publish that Europe
knew the spherical world as is..presuming Atlantic and Pacific as ONE ocean,
while Columbus swore it to be calculated smaller and shorter to India.
Whole different story than the lie presented and remembered in most
modern books. So dont tell me about trusting ANY school or teachers or
researchers. For relgion I ask....how come God killed all Sodom but
with the 10 plagues did not kill all Egypt? Shouldnt the 10 plagues
have been Egypts Armageddon so that these Jews could just sit born again
saved into their new world once ALL Egyptians were wiped out !
Why did they have to leave ! If BOTH Egypt & Canaan could be viewed
as alien dwelling waiting to be a nation for God, then shouldnt Egypt have
become part of the deal. Your answers will NOT explain this question
because you do not know how God works. God DOES require you be in the
LITERAL right place at the right time...and it IS scientific as created by him.
On this day BOTH sides science and religion are being judged for their error
of how they view God.

>> I merely say that scales must be determined for all radiation clocks.
>> I dont see us using Egyptian water clocks or pendelums anymore...
>> yet I bet Egyptians priests would have cursed any effort
>> to create digital clocks. So too...your radiation clocks are too NEW
>> and truth WILL replace them by discovering accuracy in curves.

> Modern clocks are far more accurate than any ancient water clock.
NOT my point...rather that Egypt would have prevented the success
you have achieved because they felt they had reached defined success.
So too YOUR accuracy gives YOU men the idea that you have reached
defined success in accuracy, and YOU too wish to stifle a further
refinement....the placing of correction-curves which will someday
prove the Bible history correct. If 6000 years of dead humans woke up,
you would have a very big problem telling them your view of history.
Instead you would have to take your science...and do what? toss it as
religion thinks you will have to? wrong....you will have to discover
why the innacurate readings...correction-curves due to changes. That
is why I work toward that world God is bringing next year.

> BTW, radiation clocks are not the only way to estimate the age of
>things. Every geological or chemical process (weathering, oxidation)
>happens at an estimable rate, and time spans can be inferred from these
>rates. More importantly, all the time estimates which are arrived at
>by various means must be reconciled with each other. Current estimates
>for the times of the pleistocene, the ordovician, and older periods are
>based upon reconciliation of age estimates which were arrived at in
>various ways. These ages are revised from time to time, but they have
>not undergone orders-of-magnitude corrections in this century.

I have read these things....volcanoes come back faster with life than
calculated. Niagra wears down faster than calculated, the Nile does too.
Those scholars favored in control estimate very slow change. As Charles Taze
Russell said once...what happens when you throw in a brick and the force
buries it into the Nile mud you date as 1000 years older!

>> Like Egypt...your governments will fall, before those who love truth
>> discover truth. It has been the lesson for millenia. You think religion
>> falls, and then truth pops up...but only if religion is the ruling government.
>> It has always been governments that fall, permitting truth to pop up.

Governments stifle truth...afterall stifling occurs by those who rule.
> *** We clearly have different notions about what constitutes truth.
>> Any scientific hypothesis is also as weak as relgion until research
>> attempts to discover it as true.

>Science does a pretty good job of proving many hypotheses. I am willing
>to bet my life, and the lives of my kids, on the applied scientific
>knowledge of those who produce vaccines and those who build passenger
>airplanes. Even after the downing of TWA flight 800 last month, I'd
>get on a Boeing 747 today if I needed to --- because Boeing has shown
>time and again that they know how to build airplanes.

Not if they cut back workers and keep young new brains who think they know more.

>> Religion merely has more lazy butts than science
>> believing we dont need the proof. But we do, if we want our children
>> to keep God above scientists.

> If you look for proof of a theory, you must be prepared to accept evidence
>that disproves the idea. Otherwise, you are just playing a time-wasting
>game. Would you accept evidence that proved that there was never a global
>flood since mammals began walking the earth? Honestly?

I say yes when I havent researched yet....but knowing the evidence I have
I cannot say yes because MY evidence cannot be curved NOR tossed. YOUR evidence
can be curved so that I have both science and biblical truth versus your
science ONLY. Now how can you take sides on science ONLY when the Bible
makes available both truth and science! Afterall I also fight against
superstitions....as in religion without science...but superstition also includes
pseudo-science...science without biblical facts.

>> The content of mammals (life) is carbon which maximum is 50,000-70,000 yrs.
>> The 70,000 is very shaky faint C-14. Subtract the 20,000 shift from the Flood
>> gives us 30,000 to a shaky faint 50,000. When dating life by other radiation
>> or means, it is NOT the content of life itself, but material which has entered
>> the life maintaining its own age. If I die today choking on a 1932 penny,
>> it doesnt make my death in the year 1932. And if the copper material
>> dates as 1700 how much worse is that ! There are Redwoods 1000 years old.
>> Cut down today...making a table...if the sliver of wood for C-14 testing
>> comes from the middle whose rings died 1000 years ago...the table will
>> be declared 1000 years old. Too many problems to be constructing your
>> chronology so quick as your generation has done.

>C-14 is only one way of dating things, and there is a limit to the
>time for which C-14 decay is an accurate yardstick. Again, time
>estimates come from several techniques.

Those who defend the Bible are not special gods that they have more
hours than scientists so as to cover ALL topics at once. You yourself
half but only one field and you trust others research. But you CHOOSE
who those others are going to be. Same with those who chose for or against
Jesus concerning political involvement by Jerusalem's religions.

>> I believe ALL creation myths ARE the creation of the CURRENT world
>> by Noah's Flood. Calendar dating cycles prove it...it is what I study.

> But you are assuming then that all peoples had access to some common
>knowledge or evidence of creation .... or that they were present at the
>time of creation. Or, you are assuming that all people descended from
>common ancestors who were intelligent enough to accurately record what
>happened. Given the wide variety of conflicting creation stories which
>have been handed down in various cultures, I can't believe that any of
>them are accurate factual accounts.

I dont have to assume...it is too clear that their relgions came from
Noah. That is the system of priests (schools) which Nimrod invented led to
many religions altered from the scientific and religious truth.

>> >> > Can you refer me to any of the original documents in Chinese?
>> >> >I have someone who can translate them for me.... I wouldn't rely
>> >> >on anyone else to translate tham.

>> My sources are American books stating the epoch is 2953 BC...and one book
>> referring to the Flood which divided the world into 3 sovereigns...
>> (Noah's sons). If this were myth we would expect 4 for 4 directions.

> Titles / authors / publishers ?
See my post on....new friends who offer to help. Imply they wish to see your
sources. And then while 68 of your books are setting in their house 1000 miles
away, they dont email a thing.

>> >No, deja vu is a feeling of having been somewhere or having seen something
>> >before... French for "seen before." It is a 'false memory' phenomenon,
>> >though some believe it to be evidence of reincarnation.
>> We view deja vu in oppsite ways. You note the glass as empty...knowing
>> positively that you did not see it before. I am not the fool to feel
>> psychic...but as a realist, my deja vu knows that the memory is NOT
>> false but similar...what you see is a shadow of something you remember.
>> Example...once dreaming that stepping on large pearls are painful
>> and saying this in my sleep...I went over my words for the past 2 days to
>> realize I had told someone how as a child my mother would roll her feet
>> on a golf ball. Thus my quickness to recognize the truth from where
>> the FALSE memory comes from. It was INDEED ***seen before***. My biblical
>> research thus scans ALL the things I remember to determine who. what, where
>> the world went wrong in what it believes.
>Interesting. But what you are describing is an actual recollection of
>something which happened to you. I wouldn't call this deja vu ... but
>now we are arguing semantics.

>> NO. I trust you. I still learn from you. I do not need some BETTER
>> source than you, demanding you present it. It is not important because
>> we have a history where 1000's of our sources were liars.

>OK. Again, please read my recent posting in talk.origins under the subject
>'Glaciers were here.' I have two sources for the information in that
>posting; one is a pamphlet from the Illinois State Geological Survey
>(cited in the posting) and the other is first-hand observation.

>> That's the point...I ALWAYS get the short stick...not witty enough
>> to get the better of others...they get me..which is why I've reached my
>> financial end.
> Sorry to hear that. BTW, what do you do for a living? I write
>computer software.

I was an AMC Chrysler worker....who got stuck for 6 years at a Hardees
getting 10-cent raises to $5. Live off of 14 credit cards, and really
dont care what happens now that my unemployment compensation ran out.

>> They showed video of Koresh...so I've heard his reasoning. Obsurd is
>> not merely hearing what seems shocking. Truth can be shocking. Obsurd
>> is inconsistent. Koresh developed contrary to his own words from
>> previous years. Like a Hitler he viewed his changes as NOT needing
>> evidence from outside sources than his interpretation of the Bible.
>> None of MY sources are modern religious. They are astronomy books,
>> mythology books...Egyptian, Assyrian, kinglists. Your sources are my
>> sources, I just have an eye to see what you overlook in those sources.

> I have the greatest trust in modern scientific works, but they must
>be old enough to have been examined critically for a while. I'd say
>that I am most trusting of widely-published scientific works which
>have been around for ten to twenty years. I'd put little trust in
>any mythology .... these are made-up stories, after all.

Mythology is astronomy. Stories of the dog such as Canis which stands on
the west horizon. They are dated events of major global importance.

>> >Subject, keywords, etc.?
>> calendar chronology Egypt epoch era dynasty cycle

Gvwm...@netcom.com

unread,
Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96
to

> Creation theory should not conflict with scientific evidence if it
>claims to be the truth. As a physicist and theologian, I would
>disagree with you that respectability is not important. ;-)
theologians can't be physicists. it's a law or something.

Dr Andrew J. Doherty

unread,
Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96
to Jerry Teach
Ta very much, I just thought that I would try and get some adult comment
into this thread and to treat it with the kind of seriuousness it
deserves. Science, religion and art are all ways of interpretimg the
world. I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
accept anything but science as valid. Afterall, many scientific theories
of yesteryear have now been superceeded through new discovery or
interpretation; that is the way science is. Just because we have no
methodology of proving the existence of God, it doesn't follow that God
does not actually exist. I just don't happen to believe that he does, at
least in the sense of an all powerful, all knowing deity. The forces
which drive life on this Earth do not seem to have any motives, or any
plan other than the maintenance of life itself - and even that is going
a bit far for me. I take the view that life on Earth is a result of
countless accidents and the direction in which those accidents have
driven life have been determined by environmental factors, and the
ability of any particular organism to survive in the environment it
finds itself, coupled with its ability to form relationships with other
organisms. After life has been formed or appeared in the primordial soup
or created out of nothing, there is really no need for a God. What
happened to actually get life going on this planet, however, is still
very much an open question. If you want to argue creation ideas, then
this is the place to start. THere is too much evidence for the dating of
rocks, and for evolution as a means of generating biological diversity
through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
who knows.

TTFN

Saulius Muliolis

unread,
Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96
to

In message <3217BC...@ix.netcom.com> - Judson McClendon

<juds...@ix.netcom.com>Sun, 18 Aug 1996 20:00:33 -0500 writes:
>>
>A speculation I find interesting is based on Genesis 10:25 "To Eber
>were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth
>was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." I think Peleg was
>about the second or third generation after Nimrod and the tower of
>Babel. Could it be that, after Babel when people were spread out over
>the earth, that the earth was then split up into continents? It would
>seem to answer a lot of questions about how people got to all those
>continents in the first place.

Ho hum. Again, we have a creationist proposing an incredibly fast
rate of tectonic motion. He is claiming that continents moved
thousands of miles in just a few years, when real science tells
us it took hundreds of millions of years for them to get to where
they are.

The big problem is that we can observe the motion of the tectonic
plates today, and see the effect. A movement of only inches every
year is enough to cause earthquakes all the way up the richter
scale. These quakes cause tsunami large enough to swamp cities
and break up previously solid rock. Imagine the effect of quakes
a few thousand times more severe, as would be the result in
Judson's hypothesis. Mountains would crumble into rubble. The
energy released would probably melt the entire crust.

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- Robert A.
Heinlein.

The t.o. FAQ file is at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/

Saulius Muliolis muli...@en.com
http://www.en.com/users/winderi/index.html


Dr Andrew J. Doherty

unread,
Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96
to

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <4v51bc$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, daa...@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) writes:
> >In <3212c869...@news.airmail.net> fde...@airmail.net (frank
> >dever) writes:
> >>
> >>Hang your head in shame, and say you were a jerk, and he saved
> >>your soul from certain evil beyond imagination. Say you know you are
> >>still a jerk, and you aren't one bit better except for the good things
> >>that God has done for you.
> >
> > This is nothing but propaganda, name-calling.
> >
> I feel compelled to add my two pennies worth here, not to comment on
> anything, rather to issue a statement. I'm very marginally involved
> in this thread (a comment here and there, no more) coming to it, as I
> stated clearly, from the agnostic side. Though being quite off topic

> (but, hey, that's almost a tradition here) it could've been an
> interesting intellectual argument. Unfortunately most of it is
> conducted at a gutter level, where attempts to demean the opponent
> completely replaced any resemblence of coherence. And I have to admit
> (I would almost say "with shame" but no, I cannot feel ashamed for the
> behavior of others, even if superficially they seem to share my views)
> that most of the worst trangressions come from the atheist/agnostic
> camp. It is indeed rare to see so many messages spewing pure hatred
> as in this case. Carmen, above, calls it "propaganda and name
> calling" but this is an understatement.
>
> So, I'm not going to have anything more to do with this thread and,
> Carmen, I would advise you to do just the same. If you're looking for
> a mature argument with mature people, this is obviously not the place.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I couldn't agree more - goodbye thread

Jerry Teach

unread,
Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96
to

> Ta very much, I just thought that I would try and get some adult comment
> into this thread and to treat it with the kind of seriuousness it
> deserves. Science, religion and art are all ways of interpretimg the
> world. I don't understand why many scientists cannot see this, or do not
> accept anything but science as valid. Afterall, many scientific theories
> of yesteryear have now been superceeded through new discovery or
> interpretation; that is the way science is. Just because we have no
> methodology of proving the existence of God, it doesn't follow that God

True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
be living a bit closer to you :]

> does not actually exist. I just don't happen to believe that he does, at
> least in the sense of an all powerful, all knowing deity. The forces
> which drive life on this Earth do not seem to have any motives, or any
> plan other than the maintenance of life itself - and even that is going
> a bit far for me. I take the view that life on Earth is a result of
> countless accidents and the direction in which those accidents have

An accident with amazing precision... I'm no expert and correct me if
I'm wrong but I've heard it said that if the earth would moved off it's
axis by as much as 1/4 inch away from the sun we would be an ice ball..
and a 1/4 or more closer to the sun we would be a dead planet. I've also
heard that the odds of the big bang creating all the prerequisites of a
life sustaing planet is comparable to a print shop exploding and the
debris forming a dictionary. Sorry to be so unscientific but I'll get to
my explanation for that a bit farther down in this reply.


> driven life have been determined by environmental factors, and the
> ability of any particular organism to survive in the environment it
> finds itself, coupled with its ability to form relationships with other
> organisms. After life has been formed or appeared in the primordial soup
> or created out of nothing, there is really no need for a God. What
> happened to actually get life going on this planet, however, is still
> very much an open question. If you want to argue creation ideas, then
> this is the place to start. THere is too much evidence for the dating

Actually it's the place for me to bow out :] I'm definatly not an
authority on creation science...actually my science knowledge in general
is very scare. I've read the arguments on both sides and done a little
research on my own to decipher the arguments going on in here. My faith
is based mainly on personal experiences which really aren't accepted
material for an argument of this type. I'm sure there are some very
intelectual and knowledgable creationists in here that would love to
take up the conversation. I'd just hate to make an idiot of myself
jumping into an argument in which I have no valid contribution to make.
If you'd like to hear some of my personel experiences, let me know. I'd
love to hear what you think caused them, just out of curiousity. Sorry
if I let ya down. I just prefer to be honest from the start. I've seen
people on both sides of the coin jump in over their heads and try to
compensate by typing in other peoples articles or making illogical
arguments and then when both sides get frustrated the personal attacks
start up :] I never have been too much into science. I'm a musician..
can't stand numbers but I sure love notes :]

> rocks, and for evolution as a means of generating biological diversity
> through which organisms can adapt themselves to their environment, for
> creation theory to hold much weight in the recent past. But eons ago -
> who knows.
>

God Bless (I ask God to bless everyone, take no offense)

Jerry Teach

Thomas Scharle

unread,
Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96
to jte...@ix.netcom.com

Is there any reason why this should be posted to 21 groups?

No. That's why I'm trimming the groups drastically. I'm e-mailing
this to Jerry, so he will find it, and he has the opportunity of retracting
it in public.

In article <321845...@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Teach <jte...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[...]


|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
|> be living a bit closer to you :]

[...]

Not again????!!!!!

The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.

This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.

Everybody (except for a few crackpots, we always have crackpots
among us :-o) knew that the earth was round (like a ball or a globe or
a sphere) at the time of Columbus. If they "laughed at Columbus"
it wasn't because he said the world was round, it was because he
was *wrong* in thinking it was so small.

--
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu "standard disclaimer"

"In this house, we obey the laws
of thermodynamics" Homer Simpson

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages