Intelligent design reflects a higher intelligence before man's mind

[micro...@hotmail.com]

You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.
Einstein was no atheist. He said they were his problem by
misrepresenting him. He believed in a God impersonal.


Mitchell Raemsch

[Davej]

On Feb 27, 1:42 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.
> Einstein was no atheist. He said they were his problem by
> misrepresenting him. He believed in a God impersonal.

Perhaps you could work on mastering basic coherent sentences before
tackling the god problem.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism micro...@hotmail.com <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.

OK. Enlighten us. What's the evidence for Intelligent Design?

> Einstein was no atheist. He said they were his problem by
> misrepresenting him. He believed in a God impersonal.

What Einstein believed is irrelevant. It's all about evidence.

Got any?

[Uncle Vic]

"micro...@hotmail.com" <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c7951260-
7067-45d8-8cd...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com:

Case in point here: you must deny reality to support religion.

--
Uncle Vic

"The minute someone like you would regard me as a sensible, intelligent
guy, I'd be in deep shit." -Jahnu

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 12:49 pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c7951260-
> 7067-45d8-8cda-de918a70c...@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com:

>
> > You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.
> > Einstein was no atheist. He said they were his problem by
> > misrepresenting him. He believed in a God impersonal.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Case in point here: you must deny reality to support religion.
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
>
> "The minute someone like you would regard me as a sensible, intelligent
> guy, I'd be in deep shit."  -Jahnu
>
> Visit my You Tube Channel!http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

Not all of atheism is dangerous...

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism micro...@hotmail.com <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

OK, which parts of atheism are dangerous, and which parts
arent?

[Uncle Vic]

sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote in news:jigv2d$a9d$1...@dont-email.me:

(Just shut up about the Chippendales' dude. I was young and I needed the
work.)

[Loirbaj]

John Virgil Baker aka Raemsch said,

You have to be intelligent enough to see
Intelligent Design.
Einstein was no atheist. He said they
were his problem by
misrepresenting him. He believed in a
God impersonal.

loirbaj said,
Odd you'd revert to your old Raemsch nym.

[John Gogo]

On Feb 27, 1:42 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

If there is an intelligent design- than I would have to say that it
was created from nature itself- through millions and billions of years
of change- this is what our Earth must mean to us- a haven of
possibility- a haven that has allowed this "intelligence" to flower.

[John Gogo]

There is no doubt that "intelligent design" is directly proportional
to our stability on Earth.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

You can go back to Big Bang Zero and see order beyond the mind of
man...

Mitchell Raemsch; the tripple prize

[John Gogo]

People like us all over the Earth are the survivors- we are the
winners of our own existence.

[John Gogo]

On Feb 27, 7:39 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I do not believe that you can see into the past- but I do believe that
what we see is a composite- a final image of an object which is
produced from energy at its origin- and propagates outward- but that
this propagation has a limit- and is measured as its ability to
illuminate objects which would ordinarily lay in the dark.

[Vurgil]

In article
<688eacf4-4bb1-4b59...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> John Virgil Baker aka Raemsch said,

> You have to bestupid to see

> Intelligent Design.

> Einstein was no atheist.

Albert seems to differ on that point!
At least about Liarboi Broiljab's sort of god:

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from J. Dispentiere, an
Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New
Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was despaired by
a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.
Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science
can reveal it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_views

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 6:51 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article
> <688eacf4-4bb1-4b59-a8c5-859c42a10...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

He said the atheists were his problem by misrepresenting him.
He believed in an impersonal God.

You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.

It goes back to the Beginning of time.
There was order before the mind of man.
Einstein knew God does not play dice....

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

On 2/27/2012 7:09 PM, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:

> You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.

Show the evidence that you have for this.

[Calvin Ramsey]

Show the evidence that the Constitution requires states to recognize gay
marriage.

[Malte Runz]

skrev i meddelelsen
news:5d5b0157-349b-4139...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Really? Link and quote, please. "I do not believe in a personal God", he
says, and you take that to mean 'I do believe in an impersonal god'. The
Creationist's logic at it's best. Thank you so much.

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 12:11 am, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> skrev i meddelelsennews:5d5b0157-349b-4139...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

> Malte Runz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Einstein said the atheists were his problem...

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[DanielSan]

Quote those words.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 11:30 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quote those words.- Hide quoted text -

Dig them up for yourself. I don't care if you believe me or not...
He said it. I know that all of the atheists lie about him all of the
time still till this day...

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

It's your claim.

> I don't care if you believe me or not...
> He said it.

If he did, then you should be able to quote the words.

> I know that all of the atheists lie about him all of the
> time still till this day...

Let me know if you can even show this at all.

[Paul David Wright]

Bullshit.

PDW

[Paul David Wright]

Don't hold yer breath.

PDW

[Paul David Wright]

Ahh, so he never said it, then.
Thanks for the admission, liar.

PDW

[PD]

On 2/28/2012 3:35 PM, Paul David Wright wrote:

>
> Ahh, so he never said it, then.
> Thanks for the admission, liar.

Someone with psychotic delusions is not lying. He's deluded.
You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

I do...

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/28/2012 3:35 PM, Paul David Wright wrote:
>
>>
>> Ahh, so he never said it, then.
>> Thanks for the admission, liar.
>
>Someone with psychotic delusions is not lying. He's deluded.

So are you a liar or deluded, yorself?

>You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?

That's his problem not ours, imbecile.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 3:57 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On 2/28/2012 3:35 PM, Paul David Wright wrote:
>
> >> Ahh, so he never said it, then.
> >> Thanks for the admission, liar.
>
> >Someone with psychotic delusions is not lying. He's deluded.
>
> So are you a liar or deluded, yorself?
>
> >You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>
> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.

I cant't wait...
Ask Stephen Hawking if you think I'm lying...
He wants credit where credit is not due.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[Smiler]

Unevidenced beliefs are directly proportional to your mental instablity.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[John Gogo]

We are just beginning to wake-up from the dark ages. Patience is a
virtue.

[John Gogo]

On Feb 28, 7:54 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

When I look at human history- I see advancement- even though change in
human evolution has been slow- in fact, there has been little change
of our own evolution which can be discriminated in the last hundred
and fifty years- at a point where we were living in the dark, couldn't
fly, and used horses to drive. How smart are you?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> illuminate objects which would ordinarily lay in the dark.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

We cannot measure the past especially before the Earth.
If it takes light time for the nonlocal what we see
is always the past of it. What is accross the universe
will take time for its now to be seen by us.
This is the only thing next to now...
Or the universal instant...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Olrik]

When exactly did you realize that you were a disgusting person? And what
was your reaction to that epiphany? Joy?

[PD]

On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>

>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>
> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.

The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What a fucking moron, a liar as well as an idiot.

Your dishonest unmarked snip confirms that you are just as mentally
ill as the one you accused us of poking sticks at.

In both cases, all we see is an asshole being an asshole.

Which is your problem and his.

Not ours.

[PD]

On 2/29/2012 6:00 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>>>
>>> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.
>>
>> The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.
>
> What a fucking moron, a liar as well as an idiot.
>
> Your dishonest unmarked snip confirms that you are just as mentally
> ill as the one you accused us of poking sticks at.

Aha. So a behavior that YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT LIKE (unmarked snipping)
warrants you LYING that this is a marker of mental illness.

Asshole.

Hypocritical asshole.

Self-flagellating, hypocritical asshole.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:49:51 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 2/29/2012 6:00 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>>>>
>>>> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.
>>>
>>> The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.
>>
>> What a fucking moron, a liar as well as an idiot.
>>
>> Your dishonest unmarked snip confirms that you are just as mentally
>> ill as the one you accused us of poking sticks at.
>
>Aha. So a behavior that YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT LIKE (unmarked snipping)
>warrants you LYING that this is a marker of mental illness.

Another of your lies.

What marked you as mentally ill, were your repeated personal and
other lies rather than address points.

Your current behaviour confirmed this.

>Asshole.

Project much?

>Hypocritical asshole.

More projection.

>Self-flagellating, hypocritical asshole.

And again.

>> In both cases, all we see is an asshole being an asshole.
>>
>> Which is your problem and his.
>>
>> Not ours.

Well, moron?

[PD]

On 2/29/2012 6:55 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:49:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/2012 6:00 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.
>>>>
>>>> The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.
>>>
>>> What a fucking moron, a liar as well as an idiot.
>>>
>>> Your dishonest unmarked snip confirms that you are just as mentally
>>> ill as the one you accused us of poking sticks at.
>>
>> Aha. So a behavior that YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT LIKE (unmarked snipping)
>> warrants you LYING that this is a marker of mental illness.
>
> Another of your lies.
>
> What marked you as mentally ill, were your repeated personal and
> other lies rather than address points.

But that's not what you SAID ABOVE is it? Your continued and perpetual
LIES about your own behavior mark you as what you are.
Asshole.
Hypocrital asshole.
Self-flagellating, hypocritical asshole.

No projection. Direct and targeted assessment. Deal with it like a man
or deal with it like a liar, your choice.

[PD]

On 2/29/2012 6:00 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>>>
>>> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.
>>
>> The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.
>

> In both cases, all we see is an asshole being an asshole.
>
> Which is your problem and his.
>
> Not ours.

Uh-huh.
Blame the mentally ill for YOUR poking sticks at him.
Blame the mentally ill for YOUR not being able to distinguish someone
being an asshole and someone who is mentally ill.
Call anyone a liar who flags your behavior to you.

Can't deal with your own actions? Have to blame everyone else for your
own lapses? Like to dish it out but can't deal with it when someone
deals it back to you?

Take your fragile ego and general rage and kick a tree if you have to.
As it is, your behavior is repulsive.

[jem]

Don't be so hard on him PD; he can't be more than 12 years old.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:58:42 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 2/29/2012 6:55 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:49:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/29/2012 6:00 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.
>>>>>
>>>>> The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.
>>>>
>>>> What a fucking moron, a liar as well as an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Your dishonest unmarked snip confirms that you are just as mentally
>>>> ill as the one you accused us of poking sticks at.
>>>
>>> Aha. So a behavior that YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT LIKE (unmarked snipping)
>>> warrants you LYING that this is a marker of mental illness.
>>
>> Another of your lies.
>>
>> What marked you as mentally ill, were your repeated personal and
>> other lies rather than address points.
>
>But that's not what you SAID ABOVE is it? Your continued and perpetual
>LIES about your own behavior mark you as what you are.

You lied about our reaction to somebody whom you claimed was mentally
ill, whose behaviour was little different to your own.

So the question was whether you were just lying as usual or whether
you were mentally ill yourself.

Stop pretending.

>Asshole.

More confirmation.

>Hypocrital asshole.

Project much?

>Self-flagellating, hypocritical asshole.

More projection.

>No projection. Direct and targeted assessment. Deal with it like a man
>or deal with it like a liar, your choice.

Still more projection.

You have lied repeatedly about science, science education and those
who see through your bullshit.

Especially when you invented amateur-psychologised falsehoods to use
as ad hominems.

>> Your current behaviour confirmed this.
>>
>>> Asshole.
>>
>> Project much?
>>
>>> Hypocritical asshole.
>>
>> More projection.
>>
>>> Self-flagellating, hypocritical asshole.
>>
>> And again.
>>
>>>> In both cases, all we see is an asshole being an asshole.
>>>>
>>>> Which is your problem and his.
>>>>
>>>> Not ours.
>>
>> Well, moron?

Well, moron?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:14:53 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 2/29/2012 6:00 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:46:32 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/28/2012 5:57 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:29:51 -0600, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> You're poking sticks at someone who is mentally ill. Feel good?
>>>>
>>>> That's his problem not ours, imbecile.
>>>
>>> The poking sticks is his problem? Enjoy yourself, creep.
>>
>> In both cases, all we see is an asshole being an asshole.
>>
>> Which is your problem and his.
>>
>> Not ours.
>
>Uh-huh.
>Blame the mentally ill for YOUR poking sticks at him.

More of the same lies and nastiness.

All because you and he get treated as the in-your-face assholes you
are.

>Blame the mentally ill for YOUR not being able to distinguish someone

More of the same.

>being an asshole and someone who is mentally ill.
>Call anyone a liar who flags your behavior to you.

No, liar.

for lying,

Can't you tell the difference?

I'm not the one who lies about science vs creationism, who ignores or
dismisses explanations and amateur-psychologises "reasons" why people
tell him he's wrong.

>Can't deal with your own actions? Have to blame everyone else for your
>own lapses? Like to dish it out but can't deal with it when someone
>deals it back to you?

More projection.

>Take your fragile ego and general rage and kick a tree if you have to.
>As it is, your behavior is repulsive.

And still more.

Do you honestly not understand that the personal lies you use as ad
hominems are repulsive to people who have taken the time and trouble
to explain why you are wrong both about science vs creationism?

You've painted yourself into a corner of your own making.

And can't cope when you reap what you sow.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Oh, the irony.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 8:15 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>

> Mitchell Raemsch- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You have to be intelligent enough to see intilligent design.

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

I lol'd.

How about you post your evidence for intelligent design and let's
investigate it? It's the intelligent thing to do.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 11:49 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> investigate it?  It's the intelligent thing to do.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Math in all of order suggests the Mind of God.

Mitchell Raemsch; Light Accelerates

[DanielSan]

Perhaps you could explain that.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 12:27 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps you could explain that.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Explain the obvious....

[DanielSan]

>>> Math in all of order suggests the Mind of God.
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain that.
>

> Explain the obvious....

if it's obvious, then it should be easy to explain.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 1:56 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> if it's obvious, then it should be easy to explain.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There existed a mind before man...

[DanielSan]

> There existed a mind before man...

So you say. If you have evidence for God, provide it.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 2:05 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So you say.  If you have evidence for God, provide it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Order in math is the evidence of a greater mind...

[DanielSan]

> Order in math is the evidence of a greater mind...

You just repeated your unsupported assertion.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 2:09 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You just repeated your unsupported assertion.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Look whose talking...

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[DanielSan]

> Look whose talking...

*who's, contraction of "who is"

What claim am I making?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 2:17 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What claim am I making?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That God does not exist...

[DanielSan]

> That God does not exist...

Show my words showing that claim.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 2:21 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Show my words showing that claim.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"there is no evidence..."

[DanielSan]

> "there is no evidence..."

That doesn't mean I'm claiming that God does not exist.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 2:35 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That doesn't mean I'm claiming that God does not exist.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You are claiming I am wrong about God...

[DanielSan]

> You are claiming I am wrong about God...

That doesn't mean that I'm claiming that God does not exist. If you
have evidence to show that he does, provide it. Don't just give bare
assertion and hope I'll accept that as evidence.

Because it's not.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 2:40 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then what am I wrong about?

> If you
> have evidence to show that he does, provide it.  Don't just give bare
> assertion and hope I'll accept that as evidence.
>

> Because it's not.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

God does not have to prove that He exists.
Man's proof is in the math order that came from a higher mind...

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

You have to provide evidence for God, though.

> Man's proof is in the math order that came from a higher mind...

Assertion without evidence.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 4:10 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not at all. I believe in God...

>
> > Man's proof is in the math order that came from a higher mind...
>

> Assertion without evidence.- Hide quoted text -

Where is the proof about order before the mind of man not being from a
God or his Higher Mind?

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Feb 29, 4:16 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>

You mean you're not aware that it's impossible to prove a negative.

YOU make the assertion; that makes it YOUR responsibility to provide
the evidence to support your assertion.

JD

[DanielSan]

Your belief in God is not evidence for God.

>>> Man's proof is in the math order that came from a higher mind...
>>
>> Assertion without evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Where is the proof about order before the mind of man not being from a
> God or his Higher Mind?

That would be the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You
assert that this deity exists so it's your job to show evidence of this
deity's existence. I am not asserting anything.

[Smiler]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:05:37 -0800, John Gogo wrote:

> On Feb 28, 7:54 pm, Smiler <Youmus...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:46:07 -0800, John Gogo wrote:
>> > On Feb 27, 7:32 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 27, 1:42 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > You have to be intelligent enough to see Intelligent Design.
>> >> > Einstein was no atheist. He said they were his problem by
>> >> > misrepresenting him. He believed in a God impersonal.
>>
>> >> > Mitchell Raemsch
>>
>> >> If there is an intelligent design- than I would have to say that it
>> >> was created from nature itself- through millions and billions of years
>> >> of change- this is what our Earth must mean to us- a haven of
>> >> possibility- a haven that has allowed this "intelligence" to flower.
>>

>> > There is no doubt that "intelligent design" is directly proportional
>> > to our stability on Earth.
>>
>> Unevidenced beliefs are directly proportional to your mental instablity.
>>
>
> When I look at human history- I see advancement- even though change in
> human evolution has been slow- in fact, there has been little change
> of our own evolution which can be discriminated in the last hundred
> and fifty years- at a point where we were living in the dark, couldn't
> fly, and used horses to drive. How smart are you?

Smart enough to know that 150 years is less than no time in the history of
evolution.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 4:30 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> deity's existence.  I am not asserting anything.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I believe in God.

[DanielSan]

> I believe in God.

Okay, I can see I'm not going to get any evidence out of you.


Can't say I'm surprised.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 5:00 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can't say I'm surprised.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You can see round rotating dark aether when wheels spin.
Better that they rotate. Spin is for the ice skater.
Dark spokes appear for the wheel and helicopter rotar...

And the rainbow curve never has an angle of incidence.
These are the physical evidence for God and Aether...

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

Uh.......no.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 5:17 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Uh.......no.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What is the secret to the aether or a rainbow dan?

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize Hawking hates...

[DanielSan]

> What is the secret to the aether

That dark thing you see when wheels spin is the spokes blurring because
your eye can't resolve details of the quickly moving bject.

> or a rainbow dan?

You're putting me on.

A rainbow is light from the sun being refracted out through rain
droplets and displayed in the air. It is an effect of light; it is not
a physical object. It depends on the viewer's orientation between the
rain (or other prismatic object) and the sun (or other light source).

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 5:37 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not at all...

> A rainbow is light from the sun being refracted out through rain
> droplets

Raindrops fall... why doesn't the rainbow fall while forming?
Why round and never at an angle?

> and displayed in the air.  It is an effect of light; it is not
> a physical object.  It depends on the viewer's orientation between the

I said it never has an angle. Please show me any rainbow that has ever
had an angle to any observer...

[DanielSan]

The sunlight shines through many raindrops. Kind of like your computer
monitor having millions of little dots to form an image, the light
passes through millions of raindrops to refract into a rainbow. It
doesn't fall because light doesn't fall.

Round because it's based upon your vantage point and how the sunlight
reflects and refracts off the interior of the raindrops and come back to
your eye. If you are one mile away from your buddy, you and your buddy
would see a rainbow in different portions of the sky. Because of how
the sunlight is being returned to your eye.

>> and displayed in the air. It is an effect of light; it is not
>> a physical object. It depends on the viewer's orientation between the
>
> I said it never has an angle. Please show me any rainbow that has ever
> had an angle to any observer...

What do you mean by "at an angle"?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 6:41 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

That is no explanation. You are deluding yourself.
Raindrops forming the rainbow fall...

>
> Round because it's based upon your vantage point and how the sunlight
> reflects and refracts off the interior of the raindrops and come back to
> your eye.  If you are one mile away from your buddy, you and your buddy
> would see a rainbow in different portions of the sky.  Because of how
> the sunlight is being returned to your eye.
>
> >> and displayed in the air.  It is an effect of light; it is not
> >> a physical object.  It depends on the viewer's orientation between the
>
> > I said it never has an angle. Please show me any rainbow that has ever
> > had an angle to any observer...
>

> What do you mean by "at an angle"?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Head on.

All rainbows are seen never at an angle.

Mitchell Raemsch

[DanielSan]

Replaced by more raindrops.

As long as you have a constant supply of raindrops, you will have a rainbow.

Or any kind of water droplets. See here at a waterfall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W-E0H8yEo0

Or here, you can see one as the camera moves to the correct viewing
angle to see the rainbow in a lawn sprinkler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4tBpDQJhFo
(Mute it because there's obnoxious audio)

>
>>
>> Round because it's based upon your vantage point and how the sunlight
>> reflects and refracts off the interior of the raindrops and come back to
>> your eye. If you are one mile away from your buddy, you and your buddy
>> would see a rainbow in different portions of the sky. Because of how
>> the sunlight is being returned to your eye.
>>
>>>> and displayed in the air. It is an effect of light; it is not
>>>> a physical object. It depends on the viewer's orientation between the
>>
>>> I said it never has an angle. Please show me any rainbow that has ever
>>> had an angle to any observer...
>>
>> What do you mean by "at an angle"?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Head on.
>
> All rainbows are seen never at an angle.

Because rainbows aren't physical objects that can be turned. They're a
reflection/refraction of light.

See the above lawn sprinkler video.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 29, 7:14 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

How is that... The new raindrops are in a curve...?
how does the Sun do that with replacing raindrops?

No.

>
> As long as you have a constant supply of raindrops, you will have a rainbow.
>
> Or any kind of water droplets.  See here at a waterfall:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W-E0H8yEo0
>
> Or here, you can see one as the camera moves to the correct viewing
> angle to see the rainbow in a lawn sprinkler:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4tBpDQJhFo
> (Mute it because there's obnoxious audio)
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Round because it's based upon your vantage point and how the sunlight
> >> reflects and refracts off the interior of the raindrops and come back to
> >> your eye.  If you are one mile away from your buddy, you and your buddy
> >> would see a rainbow in different portions of the sky.  Because of how
> >> the sunlight is being returned to your eye.
>

> >>>> and displayed in the air.  It is an effect of light; it- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »

[eric gisse]

DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jimfus$gbj$8...@dont-email.me:

[snip all, unread]

Why the fuck people keep responding to the nutcase is something I cannot
figure out, but into the killfile you go.

[Don Martin]

"micro...@hotmail.com" <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 4:30 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

(el snippo grande)

> I believe in God.

Obviously. And we should give a rat's ass about that just why, exactly?
Do you imagine you get a gold star or something for your credulity? Are
you hoping for some sort of cheap martyrdom here? Or are you just another
attention whore for jeebus (apparently his favored form of temple
prostitution if the kristers who show up here are anything to go by)?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Don Martin]

"micro...@hotmail.com" <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:40 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

>> That doesn't mean that I'm claiming that God does not exist.
>
> Then what am I wrong about?
>
>> If you
>> have evidence to show that he does, provide it. Don't just give bare
>> assertion and hope I'll accept that as evidence.
>>
>> Because it's not.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> God does not have to prove that He exists.

Again, you assume the existence of the very thing for which you have been
asked to provide evidence when you yammer about what your imaginary
superfriend need _not_ do. Nobody has asked your gawd to provide any
evidence, but YOU have been asked several times by several persons to do
so.

Also, please note that you are the only one in this discussion talking
about "proof.". Everyone else asks for evidence, a very different thing.

[ken...@att.net]

On Feb 29, 7:30 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

I suggest that you read the following papers for the existence of GOD:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf

[DanielSan]

Do I know you?

Oh well.

[DanielSan]

This PDF uses the following argument (which I've heard many times before):

"The only way to end the endless questioning would be to invoke the
answer that 'God made it that way.'"

This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

"I don't know how to answer these questions. Therefore, God did it."

> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf

This one asserts that various properties of the universe "appear[s] to
be designed". That doesn't mean that they WERE designed. Another
argument from ignorance.

So, neither "paper" contains evidence for the existence of "GOD". Just
the same logical fallacy.

[ken...@att.net]

Your arguement that is more ignorence...your claim that the various
designed properties does not mean they were designed is laughable.

[Uncle Vic]

"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> wrote in
news:bd7b4bb8-390f-47ce...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

<big snip>

>> > I suggest that you read the following papers for the existence of
>> > GOD:
>> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
>>
>> This PDF uses the following argument (which I've heard many times
>> before)
>:
>>
>> "The only way to end the endless questioning would be to invoke the
>> answer that 'God made it that way.'"
>>
>> This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
>>
>> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
>>
>> "I don't know how to answer these questions.  Therefore, God did it."
>>
>> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf
>>
>> This one asserts that various properties of the universe "appear[s]
>> to be designed".  That doesn't mean that they WERE designed.  Another
>> argument from ignorance.
>>
>> So, neither "paper" contains evidence for the existence of "GOD".
>>  Just the same logical fallacy.
>
> Your arguement that is more ignorence...your claim that the various
> designed properties does not mean they were designed is laughable.
>

Are you assuming there are "designed properties" before showing that there
actually are some? Circulum in demonstrando.

--
Uncle Vic

"The minute someone like you would regard me as a sensible, intelligent
guy, I'd be in deep shit." -Jahnu

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The Mind before man...
Revealed by highest order in math...

[ken...@att.net]

On Mar 1, 4:49 pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote innews:bd7b4bb8-390f-47ce...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> <big snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > I suggest that you read the following papers for the existence of
> >> > GOD:
> >> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
>
> >> This PDF uses the following argument (which I've heard many times
> >> before)
> >:
>
> >> "The only way to end the endless questioning would be to invoke the
> >> answer that 'God made it that way.'"
>
> >> This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
>
> >>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
>
> >> "I don't know how to answer these questions.  Therefore, God did it."
>
> >> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf
>
> >> This one asserts that various properties of the universe "appear[s]
> >> to be designed".  That doesn't mean that they WERE designed.  Another
> >> argument from ignorance.
>
> >> So, neither "paper" contains evidence for the existence of "GOD".
> >>  Just the same logical fallacy.
>
> > Your arguement that is more ignorence...your claim that  the various
> > designed properties does not mean they were designed is laughable.
>
> Are you assuming there are "designed properties" before showing that there
> actually are some?  Circulum in demonstrando.

Yes I assumed that properties that are not explanable by human are
designed properties.

>
> --
> Uncle Vic
>
> "The minute someone like you would regard me as a sensible, intelligent
> guy, I'd be in deep shit."  -Jahnu
>

> Visit my You Tube Channel!http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee- Hide quoted text -

[Vurgil]

In article
<bd7b4bb8-390f-47ce...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

"ken...@att.net" <set...@att.net> wrote:

> > > I suggest that you read the following papers for the existence of GOD:
> > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
> >
> > This PDF uses the following argument (which I've heard many times before):
> >
> > "The only way to end the endless questioning would be to invoke the
> > answer that 'God made it that way.'"
> >
> > This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
> >
> > http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
> >
> > "I don't know how to answer these questions.  Therefore, God did it."
> >
> > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf
> >
> > This one asserts that various properties of the universe "appear[s] to
> > be designed".  That doesn't mean that they WERE designed.  Another
> > argument from ignorance.
> >
> > So, neither "paper" contains evidence for the existence of "GOD".  Just
> > the same logical fallacy.
>
> Your arguement that is more ignorence...your claim that the various
> designed properties does not mean they were designed is laughable.

There is no objective physical evidence that anything in the universe,
including the universe itself, is "designed" by an intelligent being.

And while that lack of evidence is not proof, it IS the way to bet.

[Smiler]

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:56:08 -0800, ken...@att.net wrote:

> On Mar 1, 4:49 pm, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote
>> innews:bd7b4bb8-390f-47ce...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <big snip>
>>
>> >> > I suggest that you read the following papers for the existence of
>> >> > GOD:
>> >> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
>>
>> >> This PDF uses the following argument (which I've heard many times
>> >> before)
>> >:
>>
>> >> "The only way to end the endless questioning would be to invoke the
>> >> answer that 'God made it that way.'"
>>
>> >> This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
>>
>> >>http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
>>

>> >> "I don't know how to answer these questions.  Therefore, God did

>> >> it."
>>
>> >> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf
>>
>> >> This one asserts that various properties of the universe "appear[s]

>> >> to be designed".  That doesn't mean that they WERE designed. Â
>> >> Another argument from ignorance.
>>
>> >> So, neither "paper" contains evidence for the existence of "GOD". Â

>> >> Just the same logical fallacy.
>>

>> > Your arguement that is more ignorence...your claim that  the various

>> > designed properties does not mean they were designed is laughable.
>>
>> Are you assuming there are "designed properties" before showing that

>> there actually are some?  Circulum in demonstrando.

>
> Yes I assumed that properties that are not explanable by human are
> designed properties.
>

Your assumptions are neither fact nor evidence.

[Don Martin]

Not any more, apparently.

> Oh well.

Indeed.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 1, 3:18 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article
> <bd7b4bb8-390f-47ce-9a8d-4d7b329d8...@n12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > I suggest that you read the following papers for the existence of GOD:
> > > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
>
> > > This PDF uses the following argument (which I've heard many times before):
>
> > > "The only way to end the endless questioning would be to invoke the
> > > answer that 'God made it that way.'"
>
> > > This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
>
> > >http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
>
> > > "I don't know how to answer these questions.  Therefore, God did it."
>
> > > >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011life.pdf
>
> > > This one asserts that various properties of the universe "appear[s] to
> > > be designed".  That doesn't mean that they WERE designed.  Another
> > > argument from ignorance.
>
> > > So, neither "paper" contains evidence for the existence of "GOD".  Just
> > > the same logical fallacy.
>
> > Your arguement that is more ignorence...your claim that  the various
> > designed properties does not mean they were designed is laughable.
>

- There is no objective physical evidence that anything in the

universe, including the universe itself, is "designed" by an
intelligent being.

There is order before the mind of man.

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize...

>
> And while that lack of evidence is not proof, it IS the way to bet.- Hide quoted text -

[John Gogo]

On Mar 1, 6:53 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The order of the mind of man was created by the ordering of the
universe. We are a growth of nature.

[ken...@att.net]

So are your assumptions.

>
> --
> Smiler,
> The godless one. a.a.# 2279
> All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

> exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.- Hide quoted text -

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> universe.  We are a growth of nature.- Hide quoted text -

The order before the mind of man doesn't come from man...

> - Show quoted text -

You're as low as a toads stool in the environment...
And I don't mean the mushroom.

Mitchell Raemsch

[John Gogo]

On Mar 1, 7:21 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>

I was agreeing with you- but only adding the fact that man was created
from the order of nature.

[John Gogo]

Or maybe, we are evolving along side our ever-evolving planet, solar
system, and universe.

[John Gogo]

Maybe the chicken and the egg evolve together- at the same time.

[DanielSan]

Actually, the properties might not be designed at all. You need to show
that these properties HAVE been designed and did not come about by
natural means.