who is confident with jesus ?

[Peter]

Hello everyone

a new approach is necessary to imagine the righteousness of Jesus with
brand-new innovations when evaluating God
Prior to the debate about God , you should also try http://www.heartlight.org
;-)

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 27 March 2014 21:53:50 UTC, Peter wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> a new approach is necessary to imagine the righteousness of Jesus with
> brand-new innovations when evaluating God
>

> Prior to the debate about God , you should also try [this web site]
>
> ;-)

Hi! In talk.origins we are officially here to discuss the topic
"Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!)". So, Jesus doesn't
come up often as a subject. But thank you for your interest.
Would you like to say something about evolution and creationism?

[Melzzzzz]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:53:50 +0100
Peter <pe...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> a new approach is necessary to imagine the righteousness of Jesus
> with brand-new innovations when evaluating God
> Prior to the debate about God , you should also try
> http://www.heartlight.org ;-)

I prefer Saten. Saten is cool and she always grants me
wishes...


--
Click OK to continue...

[jonathan]

"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:04773f0c-b98a-441d...@googlegroups.com...

Evolution vs. creationism? What?

That's like saying we're here to discuss
science vs. alien abductions. But that's
not a slam of religion, but of the idea of
comparing ..mainstream science to ..extreme
religious views.

Creationists generally interpret the bible literally
which is a discredited or fringe view.

The debate between the processes of creation
and evolution is far more interesting.

And I've yet to read a post in this ng that
shows anyone can properly express the
relationship between creation and evolution
and how that relates to science and religion.

Let me sum it up as concisely as I can.

Creation is to evolution as an earthquake
is to its minor tremors. Countless minor events
combined with the rare and unpredictable
"Big One".

One of those behaviors is open to objective
precision and all the tools of modern science.
The other is sudden, random and wipes out
most of what existed before.

One is open to science (evolution) the other
is for the realm of philosophy (creation).



s

[R. Dean]

Do you consider Evolution to be in some sense
a philosophy? Just curious.
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:42:26 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your assertions above assumes that creation, as opposed to creationism
or Creationism, is not open to scientific investigation. Do you
define things like cosmology and mathematics as philosophy?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 27 March 2014 23:42:26 UTC, jonathan wrote:
> "Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:04773f0c-b98a-441d...@googlegroups.com...

> > Hi! In talk.origins we are officially here to discuss the topic
> > "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!)". So, Jesus doesn't
> > come up often as a subject. But thank you for your interest.
> > Would you like to say something about evolution and creationism?
>
> Evolution vs. creationism? What?

It's our official topic; it's printed on the door, so to speak.

As I understand it, Usenet, or its parts that are or were
interested in science, had a creationism problem. talk.origins
is one solution. People who want to pitch creationism to
scientists are allowed to do so here.

[eridanus]

it probably is. Cosmology is the philosophy of the cosmos and mathematics
is the philosophy of math operations and maths of numbers. Physics is the
philosophy of the material events or about the structure of the matter,
and evolution is philosophy of how living beings were changing along the
time. All those would be like the philosophy material things, while
traditional or old guard philosophy were mostly reasoning about imaginary
things, or imaginary property of things, or the philosophy of putative
spiritual (non material) entities.
Eri

[jillery]

Sort of, as in they sort of pitch it, but they almost never do a very
good job of it, and as in they sort of are allowed, but it's a very
tough audience.

[jillery]

You are using philosophy as incorporating science, ie "philosophy of
physics". Jonathan is using it as distinct from science, ie "One is

open to science (evolution) the other is for the realm of philosophy

(creation)." It help to avoid talking past each other if you stick
with the same definitions, or at least make the distinctions explicit.

Shall I start the pool on when you call me a troll this time?

[Robert Carnegie]

But they go away happy. They've done their duty,
like the prophet Ezekiel preaching to a flock of
ravens, and they fell on stony ground...
or whatever. :-)

And often, like Pilate, they do not stay for
an answer, either.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Who the hell is Saten?

earle
*

[eridanus]

I consulted the Oxford to see if it was valid my understanding of the word.
Philosophy: Seeking after wisdom or knowledge, spec. that which deals
with ultimate reality, or with the more general cause or principles of
things, and human perception and knowledge of them, physical phenomena,
etc. etc.
In science is working with some form of philosophy. In all sciences. It
is not purely speculative philosophy about immaterial things, but a
philosophy around physical objective facts. The maths is a case apart
in the sense that is a philosophy about operations with numbers, the
property (imaginary property) of numbers, etc. For numbers are virtual
entities, I suppose. It is something inside our minds. Like ideas,
they can be transmitted from person to person, but the reality of
these ideas is virtual. They correspond to some electrical states of
neurons; but these states are not accessible to outsiders. But in a
very minimal part. Then, it remains real the saying of Skinner about
the brain: it is a black box.

Eri

[eridanus]

He meant, sateen. Very soft and sleek.
Eri

[Melzzzzz]

Thanks for correction!

[Melzzzzz]

Imaginary friend.

>
> earle
> *

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:42:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>:

>"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:04773f0c-b98a-441d...@googlegroups.com...

>> On Thursday, 27 March 2014 21:53:50 UTC, Peter wrote:

>>> Hello everyone
>>>
>>> a new approach is necessary to imagine the righteousness of Jesus with
>>> brand-new innovations when evaluating God
>>>
>>> Prior to the debate about God , you should also try [this web site]
>>>
>>> ;-)

>> Hi! In talk.origins we are officially here to discuss the topic
>> "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!)". So, Jesus doesn't
>> come up often as a subject. But thank you for your interest.
>> Would you like to say something about evolution and creationism?

>Evolution vs. creationism? What?

It's in the FAQ; perhaps perusing it would help end your
confusion. HTH.

<snip maunderings>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:44:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:

It was a Bobby Vinton song back in the '60s: "Saten
Pillows". (Well, "Satin", but misssspellllings don't seem to
be important...)

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:50:26 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> You are using philosophy as incorporating science, ie "philosophy of
>>
>> physics". Jonathan is using it as distinct from science, ie "One is
>>
>> open to science (evolution) the other is for the realm of philosophy
>>
>> (creation)." It help to avoid talking past each other if you stick
>>
>> with the same definitions, or at least make the distinctions explicit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shall I start the pool on when you call me a troll this time?
>
>I consulted the Oxford to see if it was valid my understanding of the word.
>Philosophy: Seeking after wisdom or knowledge, spec. that which deals
>with ultimate reality, or with the more general cause or principles of
>things, and human perception and knowledge of them, physical phenomena,
>etc. etc.
>In science is working with some form of philosophy. In all sciences. It
>is not purely speculative philosophy about immaterial things, but a
>philosophy around physical objective facts. The maths is a case apart
>in the sense that is a philosophy about operations with numbers, the
>property (imaginary property) of numbers, etc. For numbers are virtual
>entities, I suppose. It is something inside our minds. Like ideas,
>they can be transmitted from person to person, but the reality of
>these ideas is virtual. They correspond to some electrical states of
>neurons; but these states are not accessible to outsiders. But in a
>very minimal part. Then, it remains real the saying of Skinner about
>the brain: it is a black box.

You continue to argue as if there is only one official meaning of
words. Even if that were true, there are lots of posters who invent
distinctive and unique definitions of words to rationalize their
argument. Jonathan is one of them. So if you have a complaint about
his definition, take it up with him.

Is it troll-calling time yet?

[Walter Bushell]

In article <04773f0c-b98a-441d...@googlegroups.com>,

How can Jesus come up as a subject; Jesus is King and we all know that
the King is not a subject.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Paul J Gans]

Kings are subject to the Emperor. As far as I know, the current
Emperor is a penguin.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

There are lots of pretenders to the throne:

http://www.lpzoo.org/animals/factsheet/emperor-newt

http://lazoo.org/animals/mammals/tamarin_emperor/index.html

http://www.tnaqua.org/OurAnimals/Invertebrates/EmperorNautilus.aspx

http://nookipedia.com/wiki/Emperor_Butterfly

http://aquarium.org/exhibits/sea-me/animals/emperor-angelfish

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/species/emperor-moth

http://freshaquarium.about.com/od/tetras/p/emperortetra.htm

http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Emperor_Goose/id


But penguins are the best birds.

[Mark Isaak]

Penguins are the best birds. Kings, by comparison, are snakes.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:25:22 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote in talk.origins:

Is king a verb in anything but checkers?

[Burkhard]

"Speak, then, as to your equals : do not king it
over us with your lues and ours, and we will listen,"
said Julian." (Dunster Castle, Thomas J. Hewlett)

"Will thou indeed be king and king it over us, dost thou fail to
know that we are not self-ruling, but under the kingsjip of an
immortal king, the one and only God?"
(Philo, Dreams 2:100)

[Paul J Gans]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>On 3/29/14 5:10 PM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <04773f0c-b98a-441d...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thursday, 27 March 2014 21:53:50 UTC, Peter wrote:
>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> a new approach is necessary to imagine the righteousness of Jesus with
>>>>> brand-new innovations when evaluating God
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to the debate about God , you should also try [this web site]
>>>>>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Hi! In talk.origins we are officially here to discuss the topic
>>>> "Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!)". So, Jesus doesn't
>>>> come up often as a subject. But thank you for your interest.
>>>> Would you like to say something about evolution and creationism?
>>
>>> How can Jesus come up as a subject; Jesus is King and we all know that
>>> the King is not a subject.
>>
>> Kings are subject to the Emperor. As far as I know, the current
>> Emperor is a penguin.

>Penguins are the best birds. Kings, by comparison, are snakes.

You've got that right!

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lhc9bg$1i7$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Isn't that unfair to snakes?

[Paul J Gans]

Of course.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:53:50 +0100, Peter <pe...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> who is confident with jesus ?

At first I was baffled and unsure of my new homozsexuality, but after a
few butt bouts with Jesus I gained the sreness and confidence to finally
ask to be on top. Thank you, Peter!

--
A Roman walked into a bar, held up two fingers, and said "Five beers, please!"

[rossum]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:52:11 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

>A Roman walked into a bar, held up two fingers, and said "Five beers, please!"

A Roman walked into a bar, "I'll have a Martinus please."

"Don't you mean a Martini?"

"If I wanted two I'd ask for two."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR_5h8CzRcI

rossum

[jillery]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:52:11 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:53:50 +0100, Peter <pe...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> who is confident with jesus ?
>
>At first I was baffled and unsure of my new homozsexuality, but after a
>few butt bouts with Jesus I gained the sreness and confidence to finally
>ask to be on top. Thank you, Peter!

Is that "soreness" or "sureness"?

[Darwin123]

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 5:53:50 PM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
>
>
> a new approach is necessary to imagine the righteousness of Jesus with
>
> brand-new innovations when evaluating God
>

> Prior to the debate about God , you should also try http://www.heartlight.org

Is your real name actually Peter ?-)