Is It Unscientific to Believe in God?
Stomp
WHEN reading about science, it is not unusual to come across
religious expressions. For example, scientists have been referred to
as "the high priests of a new technological culture," and their
laboratories as "temples" or "shrines." Of course, such expressions
are merely metaphors. However, they can lead to this important
question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
Some may feel that the more scientists learn, the further they get
from any belief in God. It is true there are many in the scientific
community who scorn religious faith. But a significant number of
others find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to
design in the natural world around us. Other scientists wonder about
more than design; they begin to think about the Designer.
ken
> question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
Yes but it's only about 100 IQ points wide and 2000 years old
harry k
Now there is a cite that is well worth _ignoring_.
Harry K
Stomp
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been prevalent for a century
and a half. Some educated people may have expected that by now, belief
in God would be banished to the realm of the ignorant, the gullible,
and the naive. Nothing of the kind has happened. Many scientists
openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a
personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design
evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.
Can such scientists be dismissed as naive? Reporting on scientists
who believe that intelligent design is responsible for our cosmos and
life in it, a book review in The New York Times comments: "They have
Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The
case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of
Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific."
T he same article also notes that proponents of intelligent design "do
not stake any obviously foolish claims. . . . What they deny is that
the standard Darwinian theory, or any other 'naturalistic' theory that
confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually
over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological
world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design—
evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an
Intelligent Designer."*
Such conclusions are surprisingly common among scientists. For
example, a study released in 1997 revealed that 4 in 10 U.S.
scientists believed in a personal God. That ratio had remained
virtually unchanged since 1914, when a similar survey was made.
Understandably, in countries where a more secular spirit prevails,
such as those in Europe, the ratio is lower. Yet, the British
newspaper The Guardian reported that "the level of belief is highest
among practitioners of the hard sciences, such as physics and geology,
lower for the soft sciences, such as anthropology." It added: "The UK
has organisations such as Christians in Science." The paper also noted
that in Great Britain "church attendance among science students is
proportionally much higher than for the arts."
Still, it does seem that the majority of scientists scoff at the idea
of a Creator. Such disdain exerts powerful peer pressure. Astronomer
Allan Sandage observes that "there is a reluctance to reveal yourself
as a believer." Why? "The opprobrium," he says—the disapproval and
censure from colleagues—"is so severe."
As a result, the scientists who dare to suggest that science is not
necessarily at odds with belief in a Creator find that their voices
are drowned out by more skeptical views. The following articles will
focus on these often-ignored voices and on why these scientists feel
as they do. How, though, are you personally affected? Can science help
you to find God?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You preach a religion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.
HVAC
The scientists that believe in god get the office
at the FAR end of the hall.
Personally, I don't give a fuck if you believe in
god, ufos, bigfoot or Tinkerbelle...Just keep your
bitch mouth shut about it or be labeled a kook.
Fair enough?
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
Virgil
<99e7c945-219d-4bf4...@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Stomp <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
The thing is that to do honest science one must eliminate attention to
the supernatural, as science is only about natural things.
And science is highly successful in working out how nature operates.
While it many well be unscientific to believe in a god, it is not
antiscientific. Some eminent scientists do, some don't.
But there are those who are anti-science , like creationists, who reject
science because of their religion.
--
Stomp
>
> You preach a religion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.
like Abiogensis?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Aug 19, 12:01 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>
>> You preach a religion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.
>
>like Abiogensis?
Not remotely.
Do you know anything about science at all?
Joseki
Not fair at all.
Joseki
>
> The thing is that to do honest science one must eliminate attention to
> the supernatural, as science is only about natural things.
>
> And science is highly successful in working out how nature operates.
>
I agree. I find it hard to believe in anything supra-natural.
> While it many well be unscientific to believe in a god, it is not
> antiscientific. Some eminent scientists do, some don't.
>
> But there are those who are anti-science , like creationists, who reject
> science because of their religion.
I am not a creationist, Of course After I say this The erternal JW
stalker hiding behind a nym will say that I am, not that anybody care
what she thinks.
In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
forms and advanced civilizations.
HVAC
>
>
>
> I am not a creationist, Of course After I say this The erternal JW
> stalker hiding behind a nym will say that I am, not that anybody care
> what she thinks.
>
> In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
> forms and advanced civilizations.
Congratulations... You're a kook!
Joseki
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Stomp <jabriol2...@gmail.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >On Aug 19, 12:01 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> You preach a religion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.
>
> >like Abiogensis?
>
> Not remotely.
>
> Do you know anything about science at all?
enough to know, abiogenesis does not pass the scientific method.
Joseki
based on what criteria? yours?
Virgil
<cb311fac-4aeb-49ba...@v2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Stomp <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
One has either that life has co-existed with the universe, or that it
started after the universe was in existence.
The latter is abiogenesis.
--
Joseki
> In article
> <cb311fac-4aeb-49ba-a0b2-1f146f122...@v2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Stomp <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 12:01 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > You preach a religion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.
>
> > like Abiogensis?
>
> One has either that life has co-existed with the universe, or that it
> started after the universe was in existence.
>
> The latter is abiogenesis.
> --
Interesting concept, but if life stated with the universe wouldn't it
still be abiogenesis.
Virgil
<f9234514-9e1b-48a7...@j1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Joseki <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Such "Genesis" would presume that the universe actually had a beginning,
which is not yet absolutely certain.
--
harry k
Abiogenesis is known to have happened at least once. Life is here
currently and thus it happened. Whether "goddidit" or "nature didit"
it is still abiogenesis (life from non-life). How it happened is not
yet known but the current hypothesis (note it is not yet a scientific
theory) is closing in on it.
BTW before you get in deeper: the ToE has ab zero to do with
abiogenesis. the ToE only discusses how life developed AFTER IT
BEGAN.
In a bit over 150 years there has been not one serious challenge to
Darwins theory as it has been developed over the years.
Harry K
harry k
Okay, so you are a kook but not a creationist kook. Believing in such
things without any evidence is still nonsense.
Harry K
harry k
Based on sanity.
Harry K
All-Seeing-|
Thanks for admitting that science makes shit up and does not know for certain WTF happened
"in the beginning".
However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
beginning"
Caranx latus
Your use of the word "know" is at variance with all of the normal
meanings of the word.
harry k
Lots of scientists believe in god. None of them that have any respect
use their faith and/or the bible when "doing science".
Harry K
All-Seeing-|
The word "know" best describes it. Sorry to p0p yer bubble pal
<o)))))>{
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:j2nb2e$m6s$1...@dont-email.me...
> Virgil wrote:
>> In article
>> Such "Genesis" would presume that the universe actually had a
>> beginning, which is not yet absolutely certain.
>
> Thanks for admitting that science makes shit up and does not know for
> certain WTF happened "in the beginning".
>
> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened
> "in the beginning"
They do? Then why haven't they provided the irrefutable scientific evidence
for what they "believe" happened? Why do they simply waggle their bible in
our faces?
--
A good read about Camping and his false predictions.
http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/Harold-
Camping-A-Man-With-No-Shame.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }(((o>
<o)))))>{
"Virgil" <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote in message
news:virgil-FF1D8F....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
> In article
> <99e7c945-219d-4bf4...@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> But there are those who are anti-science , like creationists, who reject
> science because of their religion.
Yet they don't reject science when it comes to their health. They run
straight to their Dr's instead of praying for a cure, and being cured by
their God of choice.
--
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen Roberts -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<o)))))>{
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j2mn6k$7bo$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
"Joseki" Antonio. L. Santana/Jabriol <jabri...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:6d408cbf-fe0d-471b...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
I am not a creationist, .......
In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
forms and advanced civilizations.
>
> Congratulations... You're a kook!
As a Jehovah's Witness, he's also a creationist.
>
Virgil
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
When science is not sure, it calls its conjectures hypotheses.
When science becomes sure, it then calls them theories.
The Big Bang is still formally an hypothesis, not a theory.
> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in
> the
> beginning"
Then how is it that different theists claim different and mutually
incompatible things about what happened "in the beginning"?
Until all theists can be brought to agree totally about all the details,
why should anyone else trust any of them to be right?
--
Virgil
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you most,
its what you know FOR SURE that jest ain't so."
--
Andrew
Stomp wrote:
> Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been prevalent for a century
> and a half. Some educated people may have expected that by now, belief
> in God would be banished to the realm of the ignorant, the gullible,
> and the naive. Nothing of the kind has happened. Many scientists
> openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a
> personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design
> evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.
>
> Can such scientists be dismissed as naive? Reporting on scientists
> who believe that intelligent design is responsible for our cosmos and
> life in it, a book review in The New York Times comments: "They have
> Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The
> case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of
> Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific."
>
> T he same article also notes that proponents of intelligent design "do
> not stake any obviously foolish claims. . . . What they deny is that
> the standard Darwinian theory, or any other 'naturalistic' theory that
> confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually
> over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological
> evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an
> Intelligent Designer."*
>
> Such conclusions are surprisingly common among scientists. For
> example, a study released in 1997 revealed that 4 in 10 U.S.
> scientists believed in a personal God. That ratio had remained
> virtually unchanged since 1914, when a similar survey was made.
>
> Understandably, in countries where a more secular spirit prevails,
> such as those in Europe, the ratio is lower. Yet, the British
> newspaper The Guardian reported that "the level of belief is highest
> among practitioners of the hard sciences, such as physics and geology,
> lower for the soft sciences, such as anthropology." It added: "The UK
> has organisations such as Christians in Science." The paper also noted
> that in Great Britain "church attendance among science students is
> proportionally much higher than for the arts."
>
> Still, it does seem that the majority of scientists scoff at the idea
> of a Creator. Such disdain exerts powerful peer pressure. Astronomer
> Allan Sandage observes that "there is a reluctance to reveal yourself
> censure from colleagues-"is so severe."
>
> As a result, the scientists who dare to suggest that science is not
> necessarily at odds with belief in a Creator find that their voices
> are drowned out by more skeptical views. The following articles will
> focus on these often-ignored voices and on why these scientists feel
> as they do. How, though, are you personally affected? Can science help
> you to find God?
- Lots of scientists believe in god. None of them that have any respect
- use their faith and/or the bible when "doing science".
-
- Harry K
Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in God as the masterful
creator whose existence could not be denied, in the face of the
grandeur of all creation; and the Bible was his greatest passion.
"Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could
not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation..The Bible
was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to
the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fun-
damental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those
who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." http://bit.ly/n3BGiO
nightbat
> WHEN reading about science, it is not unusual to come across
> religious expressions. For example, scientists have been referred to
> as "the high priests of a new technological culture," and their
> laboratories as "temples" or "shrines." Of course, such expressions
> are merely metaphors. However, they can lead to this important
> question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
>
> Some may feel that the more scientists learn, the further they get
> from any belief in God. It is true there are many in the scientific
> community who scorn religious faith. But a significant number of
> others find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to
> design in the natural world around us. Other scientists wonder about
> more than design; they begin to think about the Designer.
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
nightbat
Facts are facts and evidence and the working model rules
Stomp. It's a work of love and devotion to deduce the Universe to try
to close the field without sci fi and hopefully get a model that like
Officer Bert states, " Works " or " Fits ". The Profound Earth Science
Team Officers have it, it's called " The Unitied Field Theory " not to
be confused with TOE or the Theory of Everything which is pure sci fi.
There is no God Particle, there is the humble Officer nightbat the
closest to perfection in theoritical and applied advanced science as
you can get. A person which invents or creates is considered by many a
God, but that is so overdone. No one person can know everything for
even referenced religious God does not know evil. He is aware of evil
and it's works but evil is non good logic handling therefore alien to
a perfect logical good all knowing God. It's tricky, a paradox which
science is filled with mathematically, including logic perceptions
inquiries, or reserved observations. There are different schools of
present logic based views because of our limited horizon, existence,
and fleeting evidence that is many times skewed. A perfect unbiased
mind is worthy of achievement, but who can really claim it except the
mind of a perfect religious God.
Presently the very best applied mental humans use only a fraction of
their brain capacity for remember we are babies genetically and
physically. There are much more physically advanced species like the
whales that have been around longer then man. The brains of lower
animals however has not developed as far as man because each species
through evolution has chosen other physical attributes over pure
mental power. This understanding presents problems for scientists
because the subject is covered and explained in religious historical
texts. The schools of Creationists (designer based) versus Natural
Selection. Darwin as paradox referenced rejected his own original
Natural Selection model as non proveable therefore scientificlly
technically undefendable. Portions fit without closure, therefore it
is taught along with faith based Creationist model.
Scientist's and researchers search for missing pieces therefore
science presently is not an exact art. There is no magic bullet to
explain all therefore it's a work in progress. It is easy to say well
have faith it's only for God to know everything however the
intelligent mind of man is different, it searches for the truth.
Scientist's use the tools of math and applied logic and observation
inquiry to try to understand the Universe around him. A good
researcher therefore is an unbiased one as best as possible. And
remember the clock's back (Universe)is not open relative or in the
quantum for ease of total inspection. Which school is right is not
really a proper question for science is the search for the truth,
while religion does not question what is not known for it is biased in
favor of so called all knowing designer.
Profound scientist's and researchers try to lift the veil of internal
theoritical workings of " what is " and have a formidable task because
of the immensity of the Universe. The limited knowledge base,
paradoxes, secret micro quantum, and short human life span doesn't
help either. Truth doesn't come easy, even after years of inquiry, you
may be no closer then when you first started, however " Chance favors
the prepared mind " ( Pasteur). So does science inquiry lead to
designer based Universe only when the odds point that way and you stop
searching for the real truth. Remember when everything was blamed on
God now we know there are fundamental laws to the physical world
around us, and a God can't be blamed for everything we don't know or
understand. When the Pacific Islanders during World War Two first saw
western flyers they thought they were Gods.
Many have even asked is the nightbat and Science Officers God because
of our profound inventions, theories, paradox solutions, energy
solution, and help to the coffee boys, I for one am just a regular joe
that rides the bus like the rest of us. The question asked is what if
God was one of us, rides the bus like the rest of us, would you know?
Science and religion don't mix the former is evidenced based the
latter is faith based.
ponder on,
the nightbat
HVAC
>
>
> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
> beginning"
So what was god doing before the beginning?
HVAC
>
>>
>>
>>> I am not a creationist, Of course After I say this The erternal JW
>>> stalker hiding behind a nym will say that I am, not that anybody care
>>> what she thinks.
>>
>>> In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
>>> forms and advanced civilizations.
>>
>> Congratulations... You're a kook!
>>
>> --
>>
Of course.
HVAC
Are you on glue?
All-Seeing-|
"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j2o2va$9f7$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> On 8/19/2011 11:52 PM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>>
>>
>> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
>> beginning"
>
>
> So what was god doing before the beginning?
Ask him, when you meet him
HVAC
> "HVAC"<mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j2o2va$9f7$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>> On 8/19/2011 11:52 PM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
>>> beginning"
>>
>>
>> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>
> Ask him, when you meet him
I meet 'him' every time I look in the mirror.
Prick won't give me an answer.
thomas p.
news:uYOdnVlAhY5Z7tLT...@earthlink.com...
So what Andrew?
--
thomas p
I bring you the stately matron Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched
and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa and
the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle,
and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide
the looking-glass.
Mark Twain
Loirbaj
them that have any respect
science".
Andrew corrected the atheist,
Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in
God as the masterful creator whose existence
could not be denied, in the face of the
grandeur of all creation; and the Bible was
his greatest passion.
BroilJAB said,
This guidance by Intelligent Design is very
familiar in the most famous scientists.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
We know from the evidence that your claim is wrong.
Caranx latus
Yup, you're still using that word incorrectly. Try again when you've
thought it through.
G=EMC^2
> "Virgil" <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote in message
>
> news:virgil-FF1D8F....@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
>
> > In article
>
> > But there are those who are anti-science , like creationists, who reject
> > science because of their religion.
>
> Yet they don't reject science when it comes to their health. They run
> straight to their Dr's instead of praying for a cure, and being cured by
> their God of choice.
> --
> "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
> you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
> you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen Roberts -
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since sex is number one it makes more sense to believe in a God that
gives you 72 virgins . I can live with that O Ya TreBert
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I see you are still being rude by offering only bit.ly references.
Anyway, Newton would have laughed at the religious doctrines you preach.
He was curious and committed to learning. He was not proudly ignorant
the way you are.
Ralph
Sure they know Assman, just like they ride to heaven in fiery chariots,
build towers to heaven and all of that other crap you deluded fools believe.
Ralph
Still as stupid as ever, aren't you Andrew. Newton was a great scientist
and a believer in god, however, you won't find him using god on his
equations.
HVAC
>
>
> Since sex is number one it makes more sense to believe in a God that
> gives you 72 virgins . I can live with that O Ya TreBert
Those virgins are BOYS, Bert.
harry k
> On 20/08/2011 12:34 AM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Caranx latus wrote:
> >> On 19/08/2011 11:52 PM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
> >>> Virgil wrote:
> >>>> In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Assman? Think? Isn't that an oxymoron?...at least the moron part is.
Harry K
harry k
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:j2o2va$9f7$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> - Show quoted text -
How am I supposed to meet a guy that doesn't exist? Think once in
awhile.
Harry K
Free Lunch
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn�t there
He wasn�t there again today
Oh, how I wish he�d go away
When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn�t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don�t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don�t slam the door
Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn�t there
He wasn�t there again today
Oh, how I wish he�d go away
"Antigonish" (1899)
nightbat
>
> - Show quoted text -
nightbat
No no Officer Bert I only promised two Sean virgins for
every Profound Earth Science Team Officer per Ollie the captured Earth
flier. Darla is enough for any man being the most beautiful being next
to my lovely Sil. 72 virgins is a killer you couldn't handle all those
space mother-in-laws trust me. Two beautiful Seans for every guy is
enough, remember they don't age like Earth women do. Ollie has
informed they are so exotic and beautiful you can't take your eyes off
of them. Even sleepy saul will be able to get it up regularly again
once those beauties get their hands on him and revitalized long unused
body and mental zones saul didn't even know he had. Saul thinks Earth
bar girls are the thing wait till he gets a look at a real space
vixen.
onward upward,
the nightbat
Joseki
> On 8/19/2011 6:15 PM, Joseki wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> I am not a creationist, Of course After I say this The erternal JW
> >>> stalker hiding behind a nym will say that I am, not that anybody care
> >>> what she thinks.
>
> >>> In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
> >>> forms and advanced civilizations.
>
> >> Congratulations... You're a kook!
>
> >> --
>
> > based on what criteria? yours?
>
> Of course.
>
>
No good enough.
Painius
>On 8/20/2011 7:42 AM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>> "HVAC"<mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j2o2va$9f7$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>>> On 8/19/2011 11:52 PM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
>>>> beginning"
>>>
>>>
>>> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>>
>> Ask him, when you meet him
>
>
>I meet 'him' every time I look in the mirror.
>Prick won't give me an answer.
That is because it's none of your biz what he was doing before the
beginning. Well, it's either that, or he was hoping that you wouldn't
come along until AFTER the apocalypse.
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
Painius
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Those that believe their Gods created all that is get mad when you ask. "Who created their God. When mad they can kill and do. History of humankind proves >this. We get rid of Gods wars will come to an end. We get rid of Gods people will see the light. If not we will find a spacetime we will be dead before we hit the >ground. I fear for humankind,and the reason is their hocus pocus Gods Very sad TreBert
People use their religion as an EXCUSE to kill each other, Bert. If
you take God out of the picture, they just find something else upon
which to base their hatred and violence.
Territory. The gain of more territory. Especially prime territory
that has lots and lots of things they can use and sell. That's the
usual underlying reason why people as nations kill each other. God is
just a handy scapegoat.
Mad*Monkey
Even though you said you weren't getting involved, the following is
Carol stalking Jabriol yet again using a new alias or nym. Look at the
original subject of the header and follow the thread. Her comments here
are off topic.
Now just sit for a moment and think this through , you being a Born
Again Pagan, and now you had Bob Larson following you all over Usenet
calling you a child killer *"because that is what Pagans do"* on every
news group you go to, including groups that has nothing to do with Wicca
and such, How would you feel? What would you do?
You go to alt.home shopping group to inquire the price of a blender
And Bob Larson using a re-mailers x-archive-no writes: "Moe's Son suck
goat pricks as a rite for excellent health" all pagans do!!! stay away
from Pagans and don't do business with this child abuser!!!
and them spread those lies using re-mailers and such until Guy like
Vance comes around and say..."Moe, Carol lives here, and here an ISP
report of him downloading porn"
What would you do?
As I said the following is what Carol been doing to Jabriol for years. I
showed something similar to Kent, and he remsains quiet on the subject
and then lies and say " I did reply", he did not.
So Moe, even though you are not getting involved, but you are, see the
big picture?
A shame Kent did drag you into this.
On Aug 20, 1:39 am, "<o\)\)\)\)\)>{" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:j2mn6k$7bo$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> "Joseki" Antonio. L. Santana/Jabriol <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
messagenews:6d408cbf-fe0d-471b...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> I am not a creationist, .......
> In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
> forms and advanced civilizations.
>
>
>
> > Congratulations... You're a kook!
>
> As a Jehovah's Witness, he's also a creationist.
>
Painius
>On 8/19/2011 10:34 AM, Stomp wrote:
>>
>>
>> WHEN reading about science, it is not unusual to come across
>> religious expressions. For example, scientists have been referred to
>> as "the high priests of a new technological culture," and their
>> laboratories as "temples" or "shrines." Of course, such expressions
>> are merely metaphors. However, they can lead to this important
>> question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
>>
>> Some may feel that the more scientists learn, the further they get
>> from any belief in God. It is true there are many in the scientific
>> community who scorn religious faith. But a significant number of
>> others find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to
>> design in the natural world around us. Other scientists wonder about
>> more than design; they begin to think about the Designer.
>>
>> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
>
>
>
>The scientists that believe in god get the office
>at the FAR end of the hall.
>
>Personally, I don't give a fuck if you believe in
>god, ufos, bigfoot or Tinkerbelle...Just keep your
>bitch mouth shut about it or be labeled a kook.
>
>Fair enough?
I dunno, HappyVAC... "Hit girl" sounds pretty kooky to me. A bit
cunty, too.
Dakota
similar to tinyurl. That being said, it is irrelevant to his science
that Newton believed in a god.
HVAC
>
>>>>
>>>> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>>>
>>> Ask him, when you meet him
>>
>>
>> I meet 'him' every time I look in the mirror.
>> Prick won't give me an answer.
>
> That is because it's none of your biz what he was doing before the
> beginning. Well, it's either that, or he was hoping that you wouldn't
> come along until AFTER the apocalypse.
When I die, the universe ends.
Then I go and meet myself (god) and we have a
good laugh over the 'life' I've just led.
"Ready for your next assignment?", I ask myself.
"Fucking A"....And off I go.
Now, I realize that renders everyone else as basically
a sub-routine in my computer-simulated 'life'...But that
doesn't make me a narcissist....
Just a god.
HVAC
>
>>
>>
>> The scientists that believe in god get the office
>> at the FAR end of the hall.
>>
>> Personally, I don't give a fuck if you believe in
>> god, ufos, bigfoot or Tinkerbelle...Just keep your
>> bitch mouth shut about it or be labeled a kook.
>>
>> Fair enough?
>
> I dunno, HappyVAC... "Hit girl" sounds pretty kooky to me. A bit
> cunty, too.
Don't you be talkin shit about Hit Girl.......
HVAC
>
>>
>>>>> In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
>>>>> forms and advanced civilizations.
>>
>>>> Congratulations... You're a kook!
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>> based on what criteria? yours?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>
>
> No good enough.
Apology accepted.
Painius
<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> WHEN reading about science, it is not unusual to come across
>religious expressions. For example, scientists have been referred to
>as "the high priests of a new technological culture," and their
>laboratories as "temples" or "shrines." Of course, such expressions
>are merely metaphors. However, they can lead to this important
>question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
>
>Some may feel that the more scientists learn, the further they get
>from any belief in God. It is true there are many in the scientific
>community who scorn religious faith. But a significant number of
>others find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to
>design in the natural world around us. Other scientists wonder about
>more than design; they begin to think about the Designer.
>
>http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
To answer your question about the gulf between science and religion,
there are scientists who would like God to exist, so they believe in
God. The basic job of a scientist is to unveil the secrets of Nature,
and God is still one of those secrets. There was a time when nobody
seriously believed that man would ever fly, and now here we are,
burning up our frequent-flyer miles. It was once seriously believed
that the Moon was made of cheese, and that the maria were huge lakes
of water. Science has discovered new things and disproved old
beliefs.
We can thank science for heating and air-conditioning, as well has
much healthier foods to eat and water to drink. We can thank religion
for helping us find ways to kill each other. It has come to the point
where one must separate "religion" and "God". Have you ever known
scientists to kill each other over their different beliefs? So there
is definitely a gulf between science and religion, and like the
separation of "Church" and "State", the wider it remains, the better
for us all.
Painius
>On 8/20/2011 1:28 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The scientists that believe in god get the office
>>> at the FAR end of the hall.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't give a fuck if you believe in
>>> god, ufos, bigfoot or Tinkerbelle...Just keep your
>>> bitch mouth shut about it or be labeled a kook.
>>>
>>> Fair enough?
>>
>> I dunno, HappyVAC... "Hit girl" sounds pretty kooky to me. A bit
>> cunty, too.
>
>
>
>Don't you be talkin shit about Hit Girl.......
Far be it from me to be completely disgusted with you and your
fantasies about a little, purple-haired girl who kicks ass.
My personal favorites are Milla Jovovich in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_.28film.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Messenger:_The_Story_of_Joan_of_Arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Element
Sigourney Weaver in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_.28film.29
Linda Hamilton in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator
and anything with Jodi Foster in it.
So my guess is... I'm going to really LIKE Hit girl!
HVAC
>
>>
>> Don't you be talkin shit about Hit Girl.......
>
> Far be it from me to be completely disgusted with you and your
> fantasies about a little, purple-haired girl who kicks ass.
>
> My personal favorites are Milla Jovovich in...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_.28film.29
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Messenger:_The_Story_of_Joan_of_Arc
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Element
>
> Sigourney Weaver in...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_.28film.29
>
> Linda Hamilton in...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator
>
> and anything with Jodi Foster in it.
>
> So my guess is... I'm going to really LIKE Hit girl!
Ya. She totally stole the movie "Kick Ass".
I find nothing sexual about her tho...Sorry.
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
snip
Since there is nothing of value in this post, let's stick another
quarter in the EAC jukebox.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVu5DsoMKsQ
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
brough, civilization-overview dot com
> and a half. Some educated people may have expected that by now, belief
> in God would be banished to the realm of the ignorant, the gullible,
> and the naive. Nothing of the kind has happened. Many scientists
> openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a
> personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design
> evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.
>
Perhaps 4 out or 10 is accurate. So why not accept the fact your own
facts and accept that ID is not the science consensus? Yes, some
believers are even PhDs and some even in "the best" universities, but
most are not. Also, I have read that those scientists closest to the
study of life are the biologists and the largest percentage of
atheists in all science is found in biology.
Moreover, I might add that there are many scientists in India who
believe in polytheistic Hinduism. Surely you are not saying that
polytheism is scientific too are you?!
OK, so you say there is this ID in the universe. You have not the
least idea what he is made of, how big he is, in what form he (or IT?)
takes, where it is, why it does what it does or did what it did, and
and how it did it. Yet you propose that as advancing our understanding
of ourselves and the universe? And what does he do now, just sit up
there doing nothing?
If your post is an effort to convert us to some Christian sect, you
should be honest and openly admit it.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Science is Sober, Religion is Drunk. And people love/live to get drunk/religion. "Nemesis", by David Gray: Jeff-Relf.Me/Nemesis.MP3 'Neath an avalanche - soft as moss I'm a creeping and intangible sense of loss. I'm the memory you can't get out your head If I leave you now You'll wish you were somewhere else instead. I'm the manta ray, I'm the louse, I am a photograph they found in your burned out house. I'm the sound of money washing down the drain I am the pack of lies baby that keeps you sane. Gates of Heaven are open wide God help me baby, I'm trapped inside Feel like I'm buried alive. I'm the bottom line of the joke I am ecstasy spilling like bright egg yolk. I'm the thoughts you're too ashamed to ever share And I am the smell of it you're trying to wash out of you hair. Gates of Heaven are open wide God help me baby, I'm trapped inside Feel like I'm buried alive Possibilities limitless Just give me something that's more than this One shot and I'll never miss. I'm the babe that sleeps through the blitz I am a sudden and quite unexpected twist I am your one true love who sleeps with someone else I am your nemesis I'm life sweet life itself.
Virgil
<d2c555cb-4402-49f0...@h3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Lots of scientists believe in god. None of
> them that have any respect
> use their faith and/or the bible when "doing
> science".
But better they are as scientists the less they believe in gods.
--
All-Seeing-|
You two have a big suprise in store
All-Seeing-|
> On Aug 19, 11:23 am, Stomp <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Since there is nothing of value in this post, let's stick another
> quarter in the EAC jukebox.
>
Well. If you cannot refute it you can always stick your fingers in your ears.
SkyEyes
There's nothing to refute. Newton's beliefs wouldn't be recognizable
by any modern christian. He was a deist, specifically, a Socinian.
He didn't believe in a personal god that meddled in creation. Go look
it up, [M]Addy.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
SkyEyes
> On Sat 8/20/11 8:14, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:dfb7f48d-7d25-4abb...@j14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
And Newton was a weird kind of deist, anyway (not a theist). He was a
Socinian. Weird stuff, especially if one is a believer in orthodox
trinitarianism.
HVAC
> F
>
> You two have a big suprise in store
Like telling a kid to be good or the monster will get him.
Grow up, fuckface.
PS- Please pray to god to improve your spelling.
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
> On Aug 20, 2:33 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Aug 19, 11:23 am, Stomp <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > Since there is nothing of value in this post, let's stick another
> > > quarter in the EAC jukebox.
>
> > Well. If you cannot refute it you can always stick your fingers in your ears.
>
> There's nothing to refute. Newton's beliefs wouldn't be recognizable
> by any modern christian. He was a deist, specifically, a Socinian.
> He didn't believe in a personal god that meddled in creation. Go look
> it up, [M]Addy.
There's another thing about this tactic (DEZE GRATE SCIUNTIZ WUZ
BEELEVERZS!!) that almost no one ever seems to mention.
Isaac Newton lived over 250 years ago. Most of the historical and
archeological work that proves Judaism and Christianity are
mythological has been done in the last 100 years. Do these clowns
actually think that if such great minds had been allowed to know what
is known to modern humans that they would have all remained theists?
I'm sure some of them would have (as the modern sample of scientists
show), but I really think it's a bad argument.
Not to mention it commits the fallacy of argument from authority in
the first place.
All-Seeing-|
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and
innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as
central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as
involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable
work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he
thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the
nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of
the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an
intelligent and powerful Being."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the
Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were
specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1] Newton's
conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would
reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the
masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all
creation.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views
The Religious Affiliation of Influential Scientist
Isaac Newton
http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Isaac_Newton.html
You can take your fingers out of your ears now
Ralph
Unfortunately you won't have a surprise, you'll just be dead:-))).
Ralph
I'd rather it was stuck up your worthless ass.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You keep saying that but never offer a shred of evidence that you have
any reason to make that claim. Your hubris is stunning. You need to stop
worshipping yourself.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
The problem with offering an indirect reference like bit.ly or tinyurl
is that it can hide anything, from a valid reference to a rickroll to
some really nasty websites that attack users. It can be handy to offer a
shortened address as an alternative, but only if you offer the real
address as well.
Mike Painter
@v2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, jabri...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Aug 19, 12:01 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >
> > You preach a religion that is completely unsupported by any evidence.
>
> like Abiogensis?
Life is sufficient evidence that life started.
Brad Guth
> WHEN reading about science, it is not unusual to come across
> religious expressions. For example, scientists have been referred to
> as "the high priests of a new technological culture," and their
> laboratories as "temples" or "shrines." Of course, such expressions
> are merely metaphors. However, they can lead to this important
> question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
>
> Some may feel that the more scientists learn, the further they get
> from any belief in God. It is true there are many in the scientific
> community who scorn religious faith. But a significant number of
> others find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to
> design in the natural world around us. Other scientists wonder about
> more than design; they begin to think about the Designer.
>
> http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
It has certainly gotten unscientific to believe in your government,
because you can't hardly tell one obfuscation or lie from any other
obfuscation or lie. I mean, how bad off could God actually be, unless
we're talking satanic Zionism.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Virgil
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
We do not have t refute what you have never been able to establish:
It is lack of any objective physical evidence FOR any proposed
god-creator, along with lack of any objective physical evidence for the
superiority of any one such proposed god-creator over any other proposed
god-creator that justifies our lack of belief in gods/creators in
general and, even more, lack of belief in your specific god/creator in
particular.
--
Virgil
"All-Seeing-|" <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 5:39 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 2:33 pm, "All-Seeing-|" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 19, 11:23 am, Stomp <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> snip
> >>
> >>>> Since there is nothing of value in this post, let's stick another
> >>>> quarter in the EAC jukebox.
> >>
> >>> Well. If you cannot refute it you can always stick your fingers in
> >>> your ears.
> >>
> >> There's nothing to refute. Newton's beliefs wouldn't be recognizable
> >> by any modern christian. He was a deist, specifically, a Socinian.
> >> He didn't believe in a personal god that meddled in creation. Go look
> >> it up, [M]Addy.
> >
> > There's another thing about this tactic (DEZE GRATE SCIUNTIZ WUZ
> > BEELEVERZS!!) that almost no one ever seems to mention.
> >
> > Isaac Newton lived over 250 years ago.
In his time, publicly questioning the church could get one in deep shit,
but ini spite of the dangers, he dabbled extensively in the forbidden
art of alchemy.
--
Painius
>?
I am death sweet life itself,
I am Jeff sweet ol' Jeff Relf,
Let's defy the pretty ways,
Let's deny the shitty days.
We'll remind ourselves of hate,
That way we might get a date!
After we have had our fun,
Time to fight that hated one.
Now there is no more to say,
I have died and gone away,
Left is only sweet Jeff Relf
Pond'ring death sweet life itself.
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://painellsworth.net/
Jeff-Relf.Me
Birth is the leading cause of death. Was Einstein drunk on Science ? Did he live for it ? "Nemesis", by David Gray: Jeff-Relf.Me/Nemesis.MP3
All-Seeing-|
SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP
DO IT SOON!!
BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE
Painius
The presence of life is only evidence for the presence of life. Life
is evidence that life started only for those who accept that
everything must have a beginning. There is no hard evidence that
everything must have a beginning. In the absence of evidence, your
statement requires an article of faith.
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
Painius
>On 8/20/2011 3:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don't you be talkin shit about Hit Girl.......
>>
>> Far be it from me to be completely disgusted with you and your
>> fantasies about a little, purple-haired girl who kicks ass.
>>
>> My personal favorites are Milla Jovovich in...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_.28film.29
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Messenger:_The_Story_of_Joan_of_Arc
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Element
>>
>> Sigourney Weaver in...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_.28film.29
>>
>> Linda Hamilton in...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator
>>
>> and anything with Jodi Foster in it.
>>
>> So my guess is... I'm going to really LIKE Hit girl!
>
>
>Ya. She totally stole the movie "Kick Ass".
>
>I find nothing sexual about her tho...Sorry.
Interesting, HyperVAC... I don't recall mentioning anything "sexual",
so I find it rather engaging that you would garner that specific type
of "fantasy" from what I wrote. Somewhat Shakespearesque, n'est-ce
pas? or perhaps Freudian? <<<g>>>
HVAC
>
>>
>> Life is sufficient evidence that life started.
>
> The presence of life is only evidence for the presence of life. Life
> is evidence that life started only for those who accept that
> everything must have a beginning. There is no hard evidence that
> everything must have a beginning. In the absence of evidence, your
> statement requires an article of faith.
The big bang was the beginning.
HVAC
>
>>
>> Ya. She totally stole the movie "Kick Ass".
>>
>> I find nothing sexual about her tho...Sorry.
>
> Interesting, HyperVAC... I don't recall mentioning anything "sexual",
> so I find it rather engaging that you would garner that specific type
> of "fantasy" from what I wrote. Somewhat Shakespearesque, n'est-ce
> pas? or perhaps Freudian?<<<g>>>
How stupid of me to misinterpret......
" Far be it from me to be completely disgusted with you and your
fantasies about a little, purple-haired girl who kicks ass."
Or perhaps it's YOU being disingenuous?
Dakota
Good point but your proposed solution wouldn't help. A devious bastard
could provide a short link to a malicious site and also list the actual
URL to a relevant site.
I generally opt for the tiny URL preview option. Clinking the link
brings up the tinyurl site where the actual link is displayed. One more
click takes you there.
Atekomi
> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:dfb7f48d-7d25-4abb...@j14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If Newton was alive today, the current science Cabal would have
labeled him a kook.
Atekomi
> On 8/19/2011 11:52 PM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>
>
>
> > However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
> > beginning"
>
> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
What God's do. I will ask him one day.
Atekomi
> On 8/20/2011 7:42 AM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>
> > "HVAC"<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:j2o2va$9f7$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>
> >>> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
> >>> beginning"
>
> >> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>
>
> Prick won't give me an answer.
>
> --
Can you blame him? You called him a Prick. Some people don't take name
calling well
Atekomi
Priestess has decided to fight by her side.
On Aug 20, 1:24 pm, Mad*Monkey <MadMon...@ApePlanet.org> wrote:
> Moe,
>
> Even though you said you weren't getting involved, the following is
> Carol stalking Jabriol yet again using a new alias or nym. Look at the
> original subject of the header and follow the thread. Her comments here
> are off topic.
>
> Now just sit for a moment and think this through , you being a Born
> Again Pagan, and now you had Bob Larson following you all over Usenet
>
> calling you a child killer *"because that is what Pagans do"* on every
> news group you go to, including groups that has nothing to do with Wicca
> and such, How would you feel? What would you do?
>
> You go to alt.home shopping group to inquire the price of a blender
>
> And Bob Larson using a re-mailers x-archive-no writes: "Moe's Son suck
> goat pricks as a rite for excellent health" all pagans do!!! stay away
> from Pagans and don't do business with this child abuser!!!
> and them spread those lies using re-mailers and such until Guy like
> Vance comes around and say..."Moe, Carol lives here, and here an ISP
> report of him downloading porn"
>
> What would you do?
>
> As I said the following is what Carol been doing to Jabriol for years. I
> showed something similar to Kent, and he remsains quiet on the subject
> and then lies and say " I did reply", he did not.
>
> So Moe, even though you are not getting involved, but you are, see the
> big picture?
>
> A shame Kent did drag you into this.
>
> On Aug 20, 1:39 am, "<o\)\)\)\)\)>{" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:> "HVAC" <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:j2mn6k$7bo$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> > "Joseki" Antonio. L. Santana/Jabriol <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> messagenews:6d408cbf-fe0d-471b...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am not a creationist, .......
> > In my case I don't reject science. I do believe in Aliens, higher life
> > forms and advanced civilizations.
>
> > > Congratulations... You're a kook!
>
> > As a Jehovah's Witness, he's also a creationist.
Atekomi
> In article <cb311fac-4aeb-49ba-a0b2-1f146f122412
HVAC
>
>>
>>>> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>>
>>> Ask him, when you meet him
>>
>> I meet 'him' every time I look in the mirror.
>> Prick won't give me an answer.
>>
>> --
>
> Can you blame him? You called him a Prick. Some people don't take name
> calling well
So your god is both childish and petty?
Nice.
I guess it's better than the god of the bible who was
murderous and cruel as well as childish and petty.
HVAC
> On Aug 20, 6:40 am, HVAC<mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2011 11:52 PM, All-Seeing-| wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> However, people that believe in God know. They know exactly what happened "in the
>>> beginning"
>>
>> So what was god doing before the beginning?
>>
>> --
>>
Excellent. Stick your fingers in your ears and yell
"na na na na na" every time a question comes up that
challenges your faith.
PS- Be sure to ask god why he was such a pussy that he sent
his son to hang on the cross instead of taking the hit himself.
Atekomi
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT), Stomp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > WHEN reading about science, it is not unusual to come across
> >religious expressions. For example, scientists have been referred to
> >as "the high priests of a new technological culture," and their
> >laboratories as "temples" or "shrines." Of course, such expressions
> >are merely metaphors. However, they can lead to this important
> >question: Is there really a gulf dividing science from religion?
>
> >Some may feel that the more scientists learn, the further they get
> >from any belief in God. It is true there are many in the scientific
> >community who scorn religious faith. But a significant number of
> >others find themselves deeply impressed by the evidence pointing to
> >design in the natural world around us. Other scientists wonder about
> >more than design; they begin to think about the Designer.
>
> >http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
>
> there are scientists who would like God to exist, so they believe in
> God.
And they get laugh at.
>The basic job of a scientist is to unveil the secrets of Nature,
> and God is still one of those secrets. There was a time when nobody
> seriously believed that man would ever fly, and now here we are,
> burning up our frequent-flyer miles. It was once seriously believed
> that the Moon was made of cheese, and that the maria were huge lakes
> of water. Science has discovered new things and disproved old
> beliefs.
>
> We can thank science for heating and air-conditioning, as well has
> much healthier foods to eat and water to drink. We can thank religion
> for helping us find ways to kill each other.
Can't deny that.
> It has come to the point
> where one must separate "religion" and "God". Have you ever known
> scientists to kill each other over their different beliefs? So there
> is definitely a gulf between science and religion, and like the
> separation of "Church" and "State", the wider it remains, the better
> for us all.
Annointed Remnant
Atekomi says...
>
>On Aug 20, 4:43=A0am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:dfb7f48d-7d25-4abb-9c13-00c0d651ec7d@j14g2=
>t
>> - use their faith and/or the bible when "doing science".
>> -
>> - Harry K
>>
>> Isaac Newton was inspirited by his belief in God as the masterful
>> creator whose existence could not be denied, in the face of the
>> grandeur of all creation; and the Bible was his greatest passion.
>>
>> "Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could
>> not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation..The Bible
>> was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to
>> the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fun-
>> damental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those
>> who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
>
>labeled him a kook.
No, Antonio L. Santana, they would not. Newton is remembered for his
mathematical genius, not his bumbling, idiotic religious beliefs which he kept
in complete secrecy. Scientists today are gauged by their contributions to
science, regardless of their religious beliefs which is simply a personal choice
which cannot be objectively studied or proven.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
There is evidence that life could not have existed in the early eons of
the universe. That is evidence that life must have started.
Free Lunch
in alt.talk.creationism:
Does that work for bit.ly?
Painius
wrote:
Life can take many forms, some tougher than others. If the Universe
has always been, which is more likely, then life has always existed,
too.