Bill O'Reilly - Tides Prove God
Blue
Christopher A. Lee
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
Is he for real or only pretending to be so stupid?
Lord Vetinari
news:3ua9i6di94okubhec...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:29:35 +0000, Blue <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>
> Is he for real or only pretending to be so stupid?
I doubt he has the imagination to pretend.
Seon
"Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
response to him is WTF?
Christopher A. Lee
So are tides :-)
Did you ever watch the British TV comedy series 'Allo 'Allo, broadcast
in the US by PBS stations?
It was set in WW2 France and centred around the rersistence.
The English spoke with caricature upper class accents, the French like
Inspector Clouseau, etc.
And the British spy pretended to be a gendarme, speaking with a wrong
vowel in the words - eg he didn't pass by the cafe, he pissed by it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hfHyDSTX50&playnext=1&list=PL40C28C22B96ED174&index=1
Mike Jones
Seon
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:97l9i6dcmbjhsn11i...@4ax.com...
I'm not pretending, my grammar sucks. I've been trying *sigh*
Seon
"Mike Jones" <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2011.01...@dasteem.invalid...
> Responding to Seon:
>
>> "Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>
>> Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
>> response to him is WTF?
>
>
> We have some todes in our garden. ;)
>
I mean tides, hey I woke up at 6 am and haven't had my coffee yet.
> --
> *=( http://www.churchofreality.org/
Doc Smartass
@dasteem.invalid:
> Responding to Seon:
>
>> "Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>
>> Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
>> response to him is WTF?
>
>
> We have some todes in our garden. ;)
How about the Hypnotode?
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Hypnotoad
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA KnigALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
Christopher A. Lee
<lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>Responding to Seon:
>
>> "Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>
>> Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
>> response to him is WTF?
>
>
>We have some todes in our garden. ;)
Nemotodes?
Xan Du
money to play one on TV.
-Xan
Christopher A. Lee
I used to think that about Ben Stein, but he's effectively ended his
career by prostituting himself as a shill for the creationists.
>-Xan
Xan Du
No, those are what the crew of the Nautilus used for bait.
-Xan
Blue
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
What has Bill been watching?
"knife goes in, guts come out".
Xan Du
Two of the oldest professions ...
-Xan
Mike Jones
Still funny though.
And don't forget that godbots fear toads, or at least plagues of 'em.
RIBBIT! >;)
Brian E. Clark
ca...@optonline.net says...
> The English spoke with caricature upper class accents, the French like
> Inspector Clouseau, etc.
>
> And the British spy pretended to be a gendarme, speaking with a wrong
> vowel in the words - eg he didn't pass by the cafe, he pissed by it.
I remember that character: "Moving quotely, I crapped down
the tunnel."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Christopher A. Lee
It was a wonderful show. The first episode started slowly until a
scene with the two British airmen cycling down a lane dressed as
French onion sellers not understanding why cars kept almost running
into them head on - and then the camera zoomed out and you saw they
were qactually on a main road on the wrong side for France.
And then there was Vicky Michelle (Yvette)....
Lord Vetinari
news:ig2p1h$u56$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Oh, I wasn't saying that he's an idiot, just that he hasn't much
imagination.
Lord Vetinari
news:pan.2011.01...@dasteem.invalid...
>
>> "Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>
>> Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
>> response to him is WTF?
>
>
> We have some todes in our garden. ;)
Ahhhhh...bufo bufo. Tasty.
Lord Vetinari
I wonder how that fits in with "hearty man ate a toad"? I still haven't
found out what that means, though. I suspect it's a mangling of a phrase in
another language.
Lord Vetinari
news:Xns9E649E5CAC3D...@216.196.121.131...
I suppose I'd better finish working on that photo.....
Lord Vetinari
I never thought the nautilus was crude....I await your response with bated
hook.
Lord Vetinari
Hmmm...ah, what is that a quote from?
Armageddon Fred
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
O'Reilly knows that he's a Christian crook and a liar. He knows it's a
scam.
---
"I praise libertay, the freedom to obey!" -- Green Day
Mickey
> "Blue" <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
And when Silverman tried to joke about Zeus causing the
tides, to show how dumb O'Really was being, O'Really
spoke over his words. But, the look on Silverman's face
when O'Really spouted his nonsense and ignorance
about something every decently educated school child
knows was priceless. You could practically hear him
thinking,*Is this fool for real?!*
Mickey
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:97l9i6dcmbjhsn11i...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:55:44 +1100, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>"Blue" <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>
> >>Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
> >>response to him is WTF?
>
> > So are tides :-)
>
> > Did you ever watch the British TV comedy series 'Allo 'Allo, broadcast
> > in the US by PBS stations?
>
> > It was set in WW2 France and centred around the rersistence.
>
> > The English spoke with caricature upper class accents, the French like
> > Inspector Clouseau, etc.
>
> > And the British spy pretended to be a gendarme, speaking with a wrong
> > vowel in the words - eg he didn't pass by the cafe, he pissed by it.
>
>
> I'm not pretending, my grammar sucks. I've been trying *sigh*
It wasn't your grammar. It was your misspelling of toads.
Mickey
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:55:44 +1100, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >>"Blue" <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>
> >>Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
> >>response to him is WTF?
>
> > So are tides :-)
>
> > Did you ever watch the British TV comedy series 'Allo 'Allo, broadcast
> > in the US by PBS stations?
>
> > It was set in WW2 France and centred around the rersistence.
>
> > The English spoke with caricature upper class accents, the French like
> > Inspector Clouseau, etc.
>
> > And the British spy pretended to be a gendarme, speaking with a wrong
> > vowel in the words - eg he didn't pass by the cafe, he pissed by it.
>
>
> I'm not pretending, my grammar sucks. I've been trying *sigh*-
Oops. I meant tides. Geez!
Mickey
> "Blue" <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
"The Life and Times of Jack the Ripper"
Doc Smartass
news:d3cf32f7-5e33-436f...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 5, 4:02๏ฟฝpm, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:97l9i6dcm
> bjhsn11ickod...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:55:44 +1100, "Seon" <s...@iinet.net.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Blue" <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>
>> >>Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my
>> >>only response to him is WTF?
>>
>> > So are tides :-)
>>
>> > Did you ever watch the British TV comedy series 'Allo 'Allo,
>> > broadcast in the US by PBS stations?
>>
>> > It was set in WW2 France and centred around the rersistence.
>>
>> > The English spoke with caricature upper class accents, the French
>> > like Inspector Clouseau, etc.
>>
>> > And the British spy pretended to be a gendarme, speaking with a
>> > wrong vowel in the words - eg he didn't pass by the cafe, he pissed
>> > by it.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hfHyDSTX50&playnext=1&list=PL40C28
> C22...
>>
>> I'm not pretending, my grammar sucks. I've been trying *sigh*
>
> It wasn't your grammar. It was your misspelling of toads.
His spilling of todes!
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
A Christian has to be Adolf Hitler to be called militant.
All an atheist has to do is write a book. -- Tommy Holland
Doc Smartass
chibiabos
<lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
> Responding to Seon:
>
> > "Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
> >
> > Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
> > response to him is WTF?
>
>
> We have some todes in our garden. ;)
I had a tode once. Was mightily inconsiderate of wiping it's feet as it
entered from the garden. Had to turn it into midsummer's dinner
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
JohnN
MacBeth?
JohnN
Xan Du
My dear chum, I cannot debait you, the vernable Nautilus is one of the
crown jules of all science fictiondom.
-Xan
Kelsey Bjarnason
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
Oh, good grief. It's true; you *cannot* parody believers.
Mike Jones
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:29:35 +0000, Blue wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>
> Oh, good grief. It's true; you *cannot* parody believers.
They seem to take parody and satire as a challenge to "do better".
Priceless, eh? %)
Good job we don't let then drive, vote, own guns, or access kids.
Oh! Wait...!
Lord Vetinari
news:Xns9E68ABFFCE07...@216.196.121.131...
> "Lord Vetinari" <veti...@att.net> wrote in
> news:C7GdnadMFogvpbvQ...@supernews.com:
>
>> "Doc Smartass" <gek...@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9E649E5CAC3D...@216.196.121.131...
>>> Mike Jones <lu...@dasteem.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2011.01.05.20.47.55
>>> @dasteem.invalid:
>>>
>>>> Responding to Seon:
>>>>
>>>>> "Blue" <bl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>>>>
>>>>> Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
>>>>> response to him is WTF?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have some todes in our garden. ;)
>>>
>>> How about the Hypnotode?
>>>
>>> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Hypnotoad
>>>
>>> --
>>> Doc Smartass, BAAWA KnigALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
>>
>> I suppose I'd better finish working on that photo.....
>
> Photode?
Yes, I'm all fo' tode.
SkyEyes
> In article <pan.2011.01.05.20.47...@dasteem.invalid>, Mike Jones
>
> <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
> > Responding to Seon:
>
> > >news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>
> > > Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
> > > response to him is WTF?
>
> > We have some todes in our garden. ย ;)
>
> I had a tode once. Was mightily inconsiderate of wiping it's feet as it
> entered from the garden. Had to turn it into midsummer's dinner
I got tode once, when I parked in a red zone.
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 OR
skyeyes nine at gmail dot com
Alex W.
> On Jan 9, 8:06ย pm, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> In article <pan.2011.01.05.20.47...@dasteem.invalid>, Mike Jones
>>
>> <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>>> Responding to Seon:
>>
>>> > "Blue" <b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:8ojo3q...@mid.individual.net...
>>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEgkViLbTk
>>
>>> > Todes are a natural part of this planet and occur naturally, my only
>>> > response to him is WTF?
>>
>>> We have some todes in our garden. ย ;)
>>
>> I had a tode once. Was mightily inconsiderate of wiping it's feet as it
>> entered from the garden. Had to turn it into midsummer's dinner
>
> I got tode once, when I parked in a red zone.
Male announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and
unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red
zone.
Female announcer: The white zone is for immediate loading and
unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red
zone.
Male announcer: The red zone is for immediate loading and
unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the white
zone.
Female announcer: No, the white zone is for loading of passengers
and there is no stopping in a RED zone.
Male announcer: The red zone has always been for loading and
unloading of passengers. There's never stopping in a white zone.
Female announcer: Don't you tell me which zone is for loading,
and which zone is for stopping!
Male announcer: Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone
shit again.
Male announcer: There's just no stopping in a white zone.
Female announcer: Oh really, Vernon? Why pretend, we both know
perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an
abortion.
Male announcer: It's really the only sensible thing to do, if its
done safely. Therapeutically there's no danger involved.
Doc Smartass
We're at a crossrode: my tode mode is blowed!
Armageddon Fred
Can you imagine? There was a time when television was considered to be
a potential benefit to humanity, something that would elevate citizens
in to highly educated, intelligent citizens capable of making decisions
based on facts.
Instead we have Republicanism.
R.Dean
Hannity claims to be Reagan Republican.
>
Carl R
moon and sun. You can equate this to the question: what makes a
automobile go. My wife said gas makes her car go. Well yes, as a very
shallow, narrow, simple answer this is true. But this answer leaves so
much unexplained.
Likewise, the answer: the moons gravitational pull is a very shallow,
simple answer that leaves so much unexplained. This no doubt, was the
extent of the atheist's knowledge.
Tom McDonald
Really, really piss-poor analogy. Try again.
--
Tom
Apostate
wrote:
Got any physics, boy?
<not playing with guns>
--
Apostate alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer freelance Minion #'e'
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Getting Paid,
Department of Redundancy Department
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
-- Doc Smartass
"Nature has a dark sense of humor, but life is certainly
one of the things it laughs at."
-- Rinaldo of Capadoccia
e-mail to %mynick%periodaaperiod%myAA#%@gee!mail!dottedcommie
Brian E. Clark
<"carl r."@Pacbell.net> says...
> What causes the tides to go in and go out? The gravitational pull of the
> moon and sun. You can equate this to the question: what makes a
> automobile go. My wife said gas makes her car go. Well yes, as a very
> shallow, narrow, simple answer this is true. But this answer leaves so
> much unexplained.
> Likewise, the answer: the moons gravitational pull is a very shallow,
> simple answer that leaves so much unexplained.
Wow, you "rebut" to criticisms of O'Reilly's ignorance by
spitting out a gob of blatant equivocation.
There's a reason O'Reilly can get away with saying
remarkably stupid things: his audience comprises so many
remarkably stupid people.
> This no doubt, was the extent of the atheist's knowledge.
No doubt, if you had anything substantive to write, you
would have written it. Instead, we got the dreck you wrote
above.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Christopher A. Lee
What's wrong with these pig-ignorant morons?
The science that explains tides is nothing to do with atheism or vice
versa.
Neither this moron's nor O'Reilly's ignorance and stupidity count for
anything, nor do they prove their pretend friend, nor do they cause
problems for the exact equivalent of not believing in the fairies at
the bottom of the garden.
"I don't understand tides so this proves the fairies at the bottom of
the garden must cause them"
What motivates so many theists to be so publicly and proudly stupid?
harry k
Wow, that answer is so cogent I fell off my chair laughing.
BTW no matter how deep you dig into why the tides "go in and out" the
answer keeps coming up "no God is involved in it".
Harry K
Carl R
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:32:20 -0500, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article<Js26p.12860$6J5....@newsfe05.iad>, Carl R
>> <"carl r."@Pacbell.net> says...
>>
>>> What causes the tides to go in and go out? The gravitational pull of the
>>> moon and sun. You can equate this to the question: what makes a
>>> automobile go. My wife said gas makes her car go. Well yes, as a very
>>> shallow, narrow, simple answer this is true. But this answer leaves so
>>> much unexplained.
>>> Likewise, the answer: the moons gravitational pull is a very shallow,
>>> simple answer that leaves so much unexplained.
>>
>> Wow, you "rebut" to criticisms of O'Reilly's ignorance by
>> spitting out a gob of blatant equivocation.
>>
>> There's a reason O'Reilly can get away with saying
>> remarkably stupid things: his audience comprises so many
>> remarkably stupid people.
>>
>>> This no doubt, was the extent of the atheist's knowledge.
>>
>> No doubt, if you had anything substantive to write, you
>> would have written it. Instead, we got the dreck you wrote
>> above.
>
> What's wrong with these pig-ignorant morons?
>
gravitational pull causes waves one after the other only
a few feet apart. And while you are at it explain exactly
in full detail how and why gravity attracts between two
bodies.
<Snip this godamn basters ranting>
BTW I'm an agnostic the only logical position.
Carl R
Carl R
different than saying gasoline makes an auto run. Yes it does
but it's simplistic. Ok. make it a motor makes the car run.
It's still a simplistic explanation.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On 02/14/2011 11:38 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:32:20 -0500, Brian E. Clark
>> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<Js26p.12860$6J5....@newsfe05.iad>, Carl R
>>> <"carl r."@Pacbell.net> says...
>>>
>>>> What causes the tides to go in and go out? The gravitational pull of the
>>>> moon and sun. You can equate this to the question: what makes a
>>>> automobile go. My wife said gas makes her car go. Well yes, as a very
>>>> shallow, narrow, simple answer this is true. But this answer leaves so
>>>> much unexplained.
YOU might equate it with such a stupid analogy.
But cars were built using gasoline engines by humans.
Whereas you and O'Reilly presuppose that the fairies at the bottom of
the garden "built" gravity.
If you had as much evidence for the fairies at the bottom of the
garden as there is for people you might have had a point.
But you didn't.
And you haven't.
And before you insist that this hypothetical God is somehow different
than the fairies at the bottom of the garden, you have to demonstrate
it, instead of presuming that it is real.
If you had the slightest grasp of basic logic, you would have realised
long ago that introducing a god, any god, as an "explanation" BEFORE
YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED IT, simply adds two more things to [prove: this
hypothetical god and also that it actually did it.
>>>> Likewise, the answer: the moons gravitational pull is a very shallow,
>>>> simple answer that leaves so much unexplained.
>>>
>>> Wow, you "rebut" to criticisms of O'Reilly's ignorance by
>>> spitting out a gob of blatant equivocation.
He doesn't understand what message he sends to anybody with more than
half a brain.
>>> There's a reason O'Reilly can get away with saying
>>> remarkably stupid things: his audience comprises so many
>>> remarkably stupid people.
>>>
>>>> This no doubt, was the extent of the atheist's knowledge.
>>>
>>> No doubt, if you had anything substantive to write, you
>>> would have written it. Instead, we got the dreck you wrote
>>> above.
>>
>> What's wrong with these pig-ignorant morons?
>
>You godamn ignorant son of a bitch. Explain in detail why the
>gravitational pull causes waves one after the other only
>a few feet apart. And while you are at it explain exactly
>in full detail how and why gravity attracts between two
>bodies.
Translation: "Science doesn't yet know what causes gravity therefore
the fairies at the bottom of the garden did it".
What's wrong with you?
Gravity is an observed force even if we don't yet know what causes it.
Do liquids not slosh when you move them on your planet?
><Snip this godamn basters ranting>
What "ranting" were you lying about?
But thank you for demonstrating that you are an all-too-typical,
dishonest, stupid, nasty, pig-ignorant, hate-filled Christian.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On 02/14/2011 12:04 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
Because you say so?
Richard Cornford
> On Feb 13, 8:46 pm, Carl R wrote:
>
>> What causes the tides to go in and go out? The gravitational pull
>> of the moon and sun. You can equate this to the question: what
>> makes a automobile go. My wife said gas makes her car go. Well
>> yes, as a very shallow, narrow, simple answer this is true. But
>> this answer leaves so much unexplained.
>> Likewise, the answer: the moons gravitational pull is a very
>> shallow, simple answer that leaves so much unexplained. This no
>> doubt, was the extent of the atheist's knowledge.
>
> Wow, that answer is so cogent I fell off my chair laughing.
>
> BTW no matter how deep you dig into why the tides "go in and out" the
> answer keeps coming up "no God is involved in it".
Yes, it is such a mechanistic process that a relatively simple machine
can be create to predict the height of the tide over time (with the
exception of the air pressure influence that comes from the far less
predictable weather):-
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide-predicting_machine >
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
No, moron.
Just because neither you nor O'reilly understand something doesn't
mean some hypothetical superbeing did it.
Your analogy is reverses the order of things.
Cars and gasoline engines were designed by people.
So we start with people not cars and gasoline engines.
But you and O'reilly start with an observed effect and draw the
non-sequitur "conclusion" that this is somehow "evidence" for a
hypothetical superbeing that you should first have demonstrated to
exist like people do.
Does this honestly need explaining?
WangoTango
relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics, particle theory, learn to
do math that operates and explains multiple dimentions, or are you just
going to blather on about your god of the gaps crap?
When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over and we know
even more about what makes up the universe, you will still be pulling
quotes out of 2000 year old book that doesn't have the smarts to tell
its' reader to wash their hands before they eat or to not crtap in the
water they drink from. Way to go!
Christopher A. Lee
They imagines an unjustified certainty plucked out of ther arses is
better than "we don't know yet but this is what we have found so far".
WangoTango
ca...@optonline.net says...
would REALLY like a "I don't know, but let's try to find out".
If it were up to these guys we would all still be living in mud huts.
They need to hit that little channel change button and get off of Fox
and move onto the Science Channel.
Tom McDonald
It's not adequate to illustrate the actual issues.
Unless you are saying that the Newtonian understanding of gravity in that
analogy is only a small, nearly incidental part of the explanation of the
cause of the tides. If that's what you meant, I'm all ears to your fuller
explanation.
If not, then your analogy is really, really piss-poor.
--
Tom
Loirbaj
thousands of atheists...trying their best to ridicule
Dr.O'Reilly. And not ONE of them understands or
can agree among themselves "what causes tides".
There is a tide in the affairs of deviant atheists,
and Dr.O'Reilly has taken it at The Flood and on
to greater success.
bpuharic
<Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>Here we have 20 posts.Online and blogs we have
>thousands of atheists...trying their best to ridicule
>Dr.O'Reilly. And not ONE of them understands or
>can agree among themselves "what causes tides".
you mean other than the fact he said we 'didnt know where the moon
came from'
when we do?
oh. darn. another fact that bitchslapped the idiot
Carl R
have _no_ idea as to how the mechanics of a internal combustion
engine works. If you are an American then me thinks it's a 70% chance
you don't either. And the same applies to gravity. You and no one
else knows how or why bodies attract. This, in part, explains why the
four fundamental constants have not been combined into a fundamental
field theory. Even one of the greatest scientist spent his last four
decades trying to find the solution.
Carl R
No one knows for a fact anything regarding a supreme being. IT's
all supposition.
>
> When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over and we know
> even more about what makes up the universe, you will still be pulling
> quotes out of 2000 year old book that doesn't have the smarts to tell
> its' reader to wash their hands before they eat or to not crtap in the
> water they drink from. Way to go!
>
Tom McDonald
this, and that his ignorant view is goddidit?
And your view of my understanding of the internal combustion engine is just
flat wrong. So much for your me-thinking.
--
Tom
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
No, moron.
Agnosticism gives a baseless claim undeserved credibility.
In the real world the default pending evidence, is "no".
In the real world gods are objects of religious belief that the only
people who give a flying fuck about, are the religious, and they're
too stupid to grasp the world outside their religion.
>> When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over and we know
>> even more about what makes up the universe, you will still be pulling
>> quotes out of 2000 year old book that doesn't have the smarts to tell
>> its' reader to wash their hands before they eat or to not crtap in the
>> water they drink from. Way to go!
> >
>What the fuck are you spewing this shit about.
What the fuck are YOU spewing this shit about?
Jeanne Douglas
WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over
That's the job of my boss. My job, too, supporting the US institutions
providing computer analyses.
--
JD
"The good thing about science is that
it's true whether or not you believe
in it."--Neil deGrasse Tyson
Apostate
I think the poster was going somewhere near "you're so smart, explain
the exact method god used to invent those physics."
You *should* hold him to it.
Carl R
never crossed me mind. But I understand this comment to be much
deeper than than you dunderhead Americans are capable of thinking.
>
> And your view of my understanding of the internal combustion engine is
> just flat wrong. So much for your me-thinking.
>
combustion engines. That leaves a 30% chance you are not lying.
are not lying.
Carl R
Do you have a clue who your father was?
>
Armageddon Fred
><"carl r."@Pacbell.net> says...
>> What causes the tides to go in and go out? The gravitational pull of the
>> moon and sun. You can equate this to the question: what makes a
>> automobile go. My wife said gas makes her car go. Well yes, as a very
>> shallow, narrow, simple answer this is true. But this answer leaves so
>> much unexplained.
>> Likewise, the answer: the moons gravitational pull is a very shallow,
>> simple answer that leaves so much unexplained.
>Wow, you "rebut" to criticisms of O'Reilly's ignorance by
>spitting out a gob of blatant equivocation.
>There's a reason O'Reilly can get away with saying
>remarkably stupid things: his audience comprises so many
>remarkably stupid people.
What's bizarre is that O'Reilly tried to "explain" his occult lunacy in
an arena where there are non-Republican Christians watching him. What the
bloody fuck was the idiot thinking? His Republicanism only works inside
of idiot churches and FOX "News" where the fellow believer is also an
idiot.
---
"Tide goes in. Tide goes out." -- Christianity's best proof for gods yet.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Dishonest unmarked snip restored...
Agnosticism gives a baseless claim undeserved credibility.
In the real world the default pending evidence, is "no".
In the real world gods are objects of religious belief that the only
people who give a flying fuck about, are the religious, and they're
too stupid to grasp the world outside their religion.
>You fucking son of a bitch. Fuck off! No better still DIE!
>Do you have a clue who your father was?
Once again you admit my point by snipping it and resorting to insult.
Loirbaj
> What's bizarre is that O'Reilly tried to "explain" his occult lunacy in
Fred the peabrain Antisemite can't explain
how the tides operate..but he is sure that
Dr.O'Reilly somehow must be wrong. LOL
Tom McDonald
> On 02/14/2011 11:30 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
<snip. Mark your snips, or be thought (known?) to be dishonest>
>> You realize that O'Reilly hasn't the least capacity to begin to
>> understand this, and that his ignorant view is goddidit?
> >
> In the two years I've been a student in the US, this O'Reilly
> never crossed me mind. But I understand this comment to be much
> deeper than than you dunderhead Americans are capable of thinking.
The comment, if it had been made by someone capable of understanding its
deeper physics implications, might have been profound. From O'Reilly, it is
simply more of his bombastic ignorance.
I'd submit that, as you don't seem to have any knowledge of O'Reilly or his
intellect, you are operating in ignorance. Please consider learning
something of him before you defend the depth of his wisdom.
As for 'dunderhead Americans', I'm impressed at your dunderheadedness when
you leap to vile insults and name-calling at the least provocation. You have
very little room to criticize others.
>> And your view of my understanding of the internal combustion engine is
>> just flat wrong. So much for your me-thinking.
>>
> I believe I wrote there's a 70% chance you don't understand internal
> combustion engines. That leaves a 30% chance you are not lying.
> are not lying.
I am not lying.
OTOH, your father smelt of elderberries. :-)
--
Tom
Tom McDonald
Boyo, you are bad at this. Something about your childhood?
--
Tom
Carl R
>
> Agnosticism gives a baseless claim undeserved credibility.
>
life exist on this tiny dot in the universe, the odds are there's
other planets where life is older than our planet. Our solar system
is only 4.5 billion years old, there is a good possibility that
intelligent life existed on other planets even before our solar
system formed. We would look at these beings as gods. So, who
is to say this is impossible?
>
> In the real world the default pending evidence, is "no".
>
doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>
> In the real world gods are objects of religious belief that the only
> people who give a flying fuck about, are the religious, and they're
> too stupid to grasp the world outside their religion.
>
>
>> You fucking son of a bitch. Fuck off! No better still DIE!
>> Do you have a clue who your father was?
>
> Once again you admit my point by snipping it and resorting to insult.
>
you a godamn coward and an illegitimate incestuous bastard.
Loirbaj
science at high school and likely too the college level.
Remember that Clinton Dawkins has a history of
sttttutttering and blundering in debates, while Bill O
goes 100 mph and seldom miscuing. Bill thrives on
confronting atheists and other deviants. Dawkins
famously stuttered and went silent for several minutes
when he was asked to make a case for evolution.
I remember seeing Bill on pervert Letterman show
couple years ago. Bill comes out, towering over
weasel Letterman and smoothly but forcefully
backs the weasel into a corner. But when Letterman
AIRED the show, they had cut out all of O'Reilly's
sharp rebutal. So, O'Reilly on his own TV show
aired the WHOLE segment, and it was laughable
to see what Letterman had editted out. Now,
O'Reilly has got the whole atheist community
screaming and cackling..but again none of them
able to make a coherent rebutal.
harry k
> On 2/15/2011 12:31 AM, Carl R wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/14/2011 11:32 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:14:16 -0500, Carl R<"carl r."@Pacbell.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 02/14/2011 03:03 PM, WangoTango wrote:
> >>>> r."@Pacbell.net> says...
> >>>>> On 02/14/2011 11:32 AM, Brian E. Clark wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
His being dead for 15 minutes goes a long way toward explaining his
behavior :).
Harry K
Tom McDonald
> On Feb 15, 4:14 am, Tom McDonald<tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 2/15/2011 12:31 AM, Carl R wrote:
<snip>
>>> You fucking son of a bitch. Fuck off! No better still DIE!
>>> Do you have a clue who your father was?
>>
>> Boyo, you are bad at this. Something about your childhood?
>>
>> --
>> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> His being dead for 15 minutes goes a long way toward explaining his
> behavior :).
Could well be. Though if I'd known that, I'd not have written what I did.
I don't think I'd have done that, anyway. Might have, though. He's a touchy one.
--
Tom
WangoTango
way. Are you a Tooth Fairy agnostic? How about a Zeus agnostic?
> >
> > When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over and we know
> > even more about what makes up the universe, you will still be pulling
> > quotes out of 2000 year old book that doesn't have the smarts to tell
> > its' reader to wash their hands before they eat or to not crtap in the
> > water they drink from. Way to go!
> >
> What the fuck are you spewing this shit about.
>
Ah, see, EXACTLY the point.
WangoTango
is the best you can do? How about doing a little something ABOUT your
ignorance?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What "ignorance" were you lying about?
Here's a clue:
You could have left it in and showed where it was ignorant, but that
fact you didn't tells us more about you than about me.
>> Agnosticism gives a baseless claim undeserved credibility.
Why not address this?
>Horseshit! In the countless millions of galaxies, the odds are if
>life exist on this tiny dot in the universe, the odds are there's
>other planets where life is older than our planet. Our solar system
>is only 4.5 billion years old, there is a good possibility that
>intelligent life existed on other planets even before our solar
>system formed. We would look at these beings as gods. So, who
>is to say this is impossible?
Notice the dishonest bait'n'switch from the pretend friend he calls
"God" to the possibility of more intelligent aliens he would "look on
as gods".
Are this really the same in what passes for his mind?
>> In the real world the default pending evidence, is "no".
> >
>I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
Then why ignore it and pretend people have a straw man god you
invented?
>> In the real world gods are objects of religious belief that the only
>> people who give a flying fuck about, are the religious, and they're
>> too stupid to grasp the world outside their religion.
> >
>Yes, they are irrational too.
They are irrational. But the people you have been lying about and too,
are not.
But then you knew that anyway.
>>> You fucking son of a bitch. Fuck off! No better still DIE!
>>> Do you have a clue who your father was?
>>
>> Once again you admit my point by snipping it and resorting to insult.
> >
>You can dish out insults but your can't take it yourself. Makes
>you a godamn coward and an illegitimate incestuous bastard.
Yet more lies.
Face it, I'm not the one who said the gravitational pull between the
Earth and the Moon was an unsatisfactory explanation for tides, using
a bad analogy with car engines that reversed cause and effect, and
then said being agnostic about it was the only satisfactory answer.
Are you seriously agnostic about tides and gravity?
Or was this meant to be about a hypothetical superbeing O'Reilly
imagines the tides are the best "evidence" for?
Either way the result is the same.
You simply got treated as the idiot you had told us you were.
Live with it instead of being a whining, lying hypocrite hiding his
inability to address comments behind ad hominem lies.
.
Christopher A. Lee
He must be because those are the most reasonable positions.
Apostate
wrote:
<declared snip>
>I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
And to what subject is that anecdote relevant?
Christopher A. Lee
<Apos...@yeehaw.org.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:49:03 -0500, Carl R <"carl r."@Pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
><declared snip>
>>I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>>doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>>through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>>up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>>that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>
>And to what subject is that anecdote relevant?
It's a red herring introduced by a theist playing dodge-ball after he
has been called for saying something silly.
I have no idea why they insistr on using expressions like "either way"
about what remains merely their religious belief and irrelevant in the
real world - until they demonstrate otherwise.
I just wish they would at least try to think outside their religion
for a change.
><not playing with guns>
Carl R
not
>
> Here's a clue:
>
> You could have left it in and showed where it was ignorant, but that
> fact you didn't tells us more about you than about me.
>
>>> Agnosticism gives a baseless claim undeserved credibility.
>
> Why not address this?
>
>> Horseshit! In the countless millions of galaxies, the odds are if
>> life exist on this tiny dot in the universe, the odds are there's
>> other planets where life is older than our planet. Our solar system
>> is only 4.5 billion years old, there is a good possibility that
>> intelligent life existed on other planets even before our solar
>> system formed. We would look at these beings as gods. So, who
>> is to say this is impossible?
>
> Notice the dishonest bait'n'switch from the pretend friend he calls
> "God" to the possibility of more intelligent aliens he would "look on
> as gods".
>
>
> Are this really the same in what passes for his mind?
>
>>> In the real world the default pending evidence, is "no".
>>>
>> I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>> doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>> through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>> up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>> that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>
> Then why ignore it and pretend people have a straw man god you
> invented?
>
>
>>> In the real world gods are objects of religious belief that the only
>>> people who give a flying fuck about, are the religious, and they're
>>> too stupid to grasp the world outside their religion.
>>>
>> Yes, they are irrational too.
>
> They are irrational. But the people you have been lying about and too,
> are not.
>
>
> But then you knew that anyway.
>
>>>> You fucking son of a bitch. Fuck off! No better still DIE!
>>>> Do you have a clue who your father was?
>>>
>>> Once again you admit my point by snipping it and resorting to insult.
>>>
>> You can dish out insults but your can't take it yourself. Makes
>> you a godamn coward and an illegitimate incestuous bastard.
>
> Yet more lies.
>
>
> Face it, I'm not the one who said the gravitational pull between the
> Earth and the Moon was an unsatisfactory explanation for tides,
>
>
using
> a bad analogy with car engines that reversed cause and effect, and
> then said being agnostic about it was the only satisfactory answer.
>
> Are you seriously agnostic about tides and gravity?
>
Gravity _does_ cause the tides, It's true, as far as it goes. It just
doesn't go far enough. Again it's tantamount to saying the engine
causes a automobile to go. This is also true, but it explains nothing.
>
> Or was this meant to be about a hypothetical superbeing O'Reilly
> imagines the tides are the best "evidence" for?
>
>
> Either way the result is the same.
>
> You simply got treated as the idiot you had told us you were.
>
> Live with it instead of being a whining, lying hypocrite hiding his
> inability to address comments behind ad hominem lies.
>
> .
Carl R
Olympus, that can be tested.
>> >
>>> When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over and we know
>>> even more about what makes up the universe, you will still be pulling
>>> quotes out of 2000 year old book that doesn't have the smarts to tell
>>> its' reader to wash their hands before they eat or to not crtap in the
>>> water they drink from. Way to go!
>> >
>> What the fuck are you spewing this shit about.
>>
> Ah, see, EXACTLY the point.
>
mean something. That why I responded the way I did.
Carl R
Carl R
it, is where you think that gravity is a sufficient explanation. Not
wrong just doesn't go far enough. This is real ignorance.
WangoTango
Do you know where Mt Olympus is?
Do you know where Asgard is?
Now you are just tap dancing around your untenable position.
> >> >
> >>> When the reams and reams of data from CERN get poured over and we know
> >>> even more about what makes up the universe, you will still be pulling
> >>> quotes out of 2000 year old book that doesn't have the smarts to tell
> >>> its' reader to wash their hands before they eat or to not crtap in the
> >>> water they drink from. Way to go!
> >> >
> >> What the fuck are you spewing this shit about.
> >>
> > Ah, see, EXACTLY the point.
> >
> It's frustrating to pull out 2000 year old books and pretend they
> mean something. That why I responded the way I did.
Well, that's a start.
WangoTango
OK, so now we are back to:
OK, so you are willing to spend years learning the general theory of
relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics, particle theory, learn to
do math that operates and explains multiple dimensions?
The ONLY way to go much deeper into the existing science is to do the
above AND MUCH MORE. Sometimes the most satisfactory answer is not in
the realm of expertise of the person you are explaining things to, so
that's why you get the simple explanation. You want to delve deeper you
can spend the rest of your life just acquiring the tools needed. I
suggest you spend some time reading the assorted works of Newton,
Einstein, and Hawking as a start, and in that order. Once the guys at
CERN get at the data they are compiling we may have an even better of
understanding of the particle and/or dimension that gravity comes from,
and why it is so weak.
WangoTango
Apos...@yeehaw.org.invalid says...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:49:03 -0500, Carl R <"carl r."@Pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> <declared snip>
> >I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
> >doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
> >through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
> >up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
> >that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>
> And to what subject is that anecdote relevant?
The more important thing is that he didn't remember anything from the
billions and billions of years of being dead before he was alive. It
wasn't until he had a brain (???? benefit of the doubt) that could go
wackey from oxygen starvation that he has any memory, go figure.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I understood it perectly - it reversed the order of things, we know
about petrol engines and cars because we built them.
We also know how gravity works but not YET why.
And you pretended explaining that something happens because of gravity
is unsatisfactory.
If you had demonstrated this hypothetical superbeing to the same level
of confidence as the people who make cars and gasoline engines, you
might have had a point.
But until you do that you have none.
>> Here's a clue:
>>
>> You could have left it in and showed where it was ignorant, but that
>> fact you didn't tells us more about you than about me.
Well?
>>>> Agnosticism gives a baseless claim undeserved credibility.
>>
>> Why not address this?
Well?
>>> Horseshit! In the countless millions of galaxies, the odds are if
>>> life exist on this tiny dot in the universe, the odds are there's
>>> other planets where life is older than our planet. Our solar system
>>> is only 4.5 billion years old, there is a good possibility that
>>> intelligent life existed on other planets even before our solar
>>> system formed. We would look at these beings as gods. So, who
>>> is to say this is impossible?
>>
>> Notice the dishonest bait'n'switch from the pretend friend he calls
>> "God" to the possibility of more intelligent aliens he would "look on
>> as gods".
> >
>It's just a possibility. No one knows anything.
And its also a red herring.
>> Are this really the same in what passes for his mind?
Well?
>>>> In the real world the default pending evidence, is "no".
>>>>
>>> I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>>> doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>>> through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>>> up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>>> that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>>
>> Then why ignore it and pretend people have a straw man god you
>> invented?
> >
>It's just an assumption, a possibility.
It's also a red herring.
Are you saying that a member of one of these hypothetical more
advanced races is the God O'Reilly stupidly imagines the tides are
evidence for?
If not, why bring it up as anything but a red herring?
>>>> In the real world gods are objects of religious belief that the only
>>>> people who give a flying fuck about, are the religious, and they're
>>>> too stupid to grasp the world outside their religion.
>>>>
>>> Yes, they are irrational too.
>>
>> They are irrational. But the people you have been lying about and too,
>> are not.
> >
>I just believe to say gravity causes the tides is too superficial.
Why is it "superficial"? Because it does.
>> But then you knew that anyway.
>>
>>>>> You fucking son of a bitch. Fuck off! No better still DIE!
>>>>> Do you have a clue who your father was?
>>>>
>>>> Once again you admit my point by snipping it and resorting to insult.
>>>>
>>> You can dish out insults but your can't take it yourself. Makes
>>> you a godamn coward and an illegitimate incestuous bastard.
>>
>> Yet more lies.
> >
>No!
Was it some other moron who tried to "defend" O'Reilly sayiong that
tides were evidence for his (the Roman Catholoic) God?
And then hid behind agnosticism?
And then introduced hypothetical more technically advanced species
both as a red herring and to attack us over, hoping we wouldn't
notince the bait'n'switch?
>> Face it, I'm not the one who said the gravitational pull between the
>> Earth and the Moon was an unsatisfactory explanation for tides,
> >
> It's not a satisifactory explanation.
WHY NOT?
Because it happens to be true.
> using
>> a bad analogy with car engines that reversed cause and effect, and
>> then said being agnostic about it was the only satisfactory answer.
>>
>> Are you seriously agnostic about tides and gravity?
> >
>No, not on this!
Then why bring up agnosticism in that context?
>Gravity _does_ cause the tides, It's true, as far as it goes. It just
>doesn't go far enough. Again it's tantamount to saying the engine
>causes a automobile to go. This is also true, but it explains nothing.
And we've told you what is wrong with this analogy.
Why don'tYPI explain what causes the tides then?
In the real world outsoiide the fantasies of theistic religion.
>> Or was this meant to be about a hypothetical superbeing O'Reilly
>> imagines the tides are the best "evidence" for?
> >
>I heard the name O'Reilly, But I don't know anything about the bloke.
He's a paranoid moron who xcan't think outside Catholicism and can't
allow people to have honest reasons to dislike it.
>> Either way the result is the same.
>>
>> You simply got treated as the idiot you had told us you were.
>>
>> Live with it instead of being a whining, lying hypocrite hiding his
>> inability to address comments behind ad hominem lies.
>>
>Yes, to say gravity is a sufficent explanation is a lie.
SO GIVE A BETTER EXPLANATION THEN.
What is wrong with saying the gravitional pull between the Earth and
the moon causes the water which is is liquid to rise towards where the
Moon currently is? And that because the Moon is always moving WRT to
any spot on the Earth, the point at which the water rises is
constantly changing?
The only "reason" you can say this isn't satisfactory is because we
don't YET know what causes gravity even though leading edge physicists
are working on it.
You introduced a subsequent red herring over waves which are not tides
per se, but simply the result of water being a fluid that sloshes when
it moves.
Christopher A. Lee
It's a standard dishonesty that expands "agnostic" into
meaninglessness.
Virgil
<fa2ff647-8959-4a00...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> In fact
Anyone who trusts JabrioLoirbaJ for facts will end up broke and ignorant.
--
Evolution-denial is morally equivalent to holocaust-denial
Virgil
<870fbcf5-1e27-4693...@e9g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> AntiSemitic puke "Fred" bleats
> > What's bizarre is that O'Reilly tried to "explain" his occult lunacy in
>
> Fred the peabrain Antisemite can't explain
> how the tides operate..but he is sure that
> O'Reilly somehow must be wrong.
One does not have to be a scientist to be able to smell shit.
Carl R
is true as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. And this
simple comment has been blown completely beyond any reasonable
discussion.
I don't know what O'Reilly point was, or what he was trying to
show by his arsine statement - assuming this was a "stand alone"
comment with no context. But it's hard to imagine the bloke didn't
know tides were caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. I
suspect he was trying to show that there is a deeper meaning that
no one including scientist has been able to fathomed.
Carl R
> In article<k3C6p.23438$w57....@newsfe13.iad>, Carl R<"carl
don't have all the answers. No one this day and age thinks the moon has
no effect on the earth, or that the earth is flat.
Carl R
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:49:03 -0500, Carl R<"carl r."@Pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> <declared snip>
>> I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>> doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>> through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>> up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>> that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>
> And to what subject is that anecdote relevant?
>
bothered me ever since. And my anxiety; my emotional problems
and my inability to have a relationship, my psychiatrist says
it all stems from this.
>
> <not playing with guns>
>
Mike Jones
> AntiSemitic puke "Fred" bleats
>> What's bizarre is that O'Reilly tried to "explain" his occult lunacy in
>
> Fred the peabrain Antisemite can't explain how the tides operate..but he
> is sure that Dr.O'Reilly somehow must be wrong. LOL
Wow! Just when you think this loon can't get any stoopida!
Apostate
wrote:
>On 02/15/2011 01:20 PM, Apostate wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:49:03 -0500, Carl R<"carl r."@Pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <declared snip>
>>> I don't have a problem with the "no" default position. But even so it
>>> doesn't prove anything either way. When I was 15 years old I fell
>>> through ice and drowned. I was "dead" for twenty minutes. I woke
>>> up with with somebody beating me on the chest. I remember things
>>> that happened just before I came to. I can't forget that.
>>
>> And to what subject is that anecdote relevant?
> >
>Nothing except I did see something I cannot explain. And it has
>bothered me ever since. And my anxiety; my emotional problems
>and my inability to have a relationship, my psychiatrist says
>it all stems from this.
>>
Sorry for your suffering.
I've resumed consciousness following surgery under general anesthesia
a few times, and in the more severely "put under" cases found the
early moments extremely distressing and anxiety-provoking. But
it didn't stay with me other than as an abstract memory beyond the
recovery room. No doubt, your experience was more troubling for you.
But I don't think it needs to be regarded as more than an artifact of
brain biology under distressed physical conditions. Maybe it would
ease the haunting somewhat to look at it in that light rather than
expecting it to be something transcendant in significance.
My 2ยข, shared out of pure altruism. :-)