info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The issue of the Big Bang and supposed creation
0 views
Skip to first unread message
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 22, 2011, 8:50:57 PM12/22/11
to
Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
This is stupid. Science is in a better position to understand itself
and the physical begining. Religions shot was abysmal with regards
to that. Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which
is wonderful.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
This is stupid. Science is in a better position to understand itself
and the physical begining. Religions shot was abysmal with regards
to that. Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which
is wonderful.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Florian Kutscherauer
Dec 22, 2011, 9:20:21 PM12/22/11
to
Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
crap---including your own shit.
> Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
No, and I don't want to be.
> This is stupid.
My point exactly.
> Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
> begining.
If you knew what science actually /is/ you wouldn't talk about it like it
were a person.
> Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
Religion is not a person. It cannot shoot, so it couldn't have shot
abysmally.
> Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
So apparently you don't know what science is. I'm not surprised.
I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
need for you to even try.
--
Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.
Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
crap---including your own shit.
> Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
> This is stupid.
My point exactly.
> Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
> begining.
were a person.
> Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
abysmally.
> Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
need for you to even try.
--
Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 22, 2011, 9:41:10 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 22, 6:20 pm, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
wrote:
>
> Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
> crap---including your own shit.
>
> > Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
>
> No, and I don't want to be.
>
> > This is stupid.
>
> My point exactly.
>
> > Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
> > begining.
>
> If you knew what science actually /is/ you wouldn't talk about it like it
> were a person.
>
> > Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
>
> Religion is not a person. It cannot shoot, so it couldn't have shot
> abysmally.
>
> > Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
>
> So apparently you don't know what science is. I'm not surprised.
>
> I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
> need for you to even try.
>
> --
> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.
I do believe there are such things as the scientific and religious
establishments which speak for themselves.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
wrote:
> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>
> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
> > Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>
> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
> crap---including your own shit.
>
> > Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
>
> No, and I don't want to be.
>
> > This is stupid.
>
> My point exactly.
>
> > Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
> > begining.
>
> If you knew what science actually /is/ you wouldn't talk about it like it
> were a person.
>
> > Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
>
> Religion is not a person. It cannot shoot, so it couldn't have shot
> abysmally.
>
> > Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
>
> So apparently you don't know what science is. I'm not surprised.
>
> I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
> need for you to even try.
>
> --
> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.
establishments which speak for themselves.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Don Stockbauer
Dec 22, 2011, 10:01:53 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 22, 8:20 pm, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
wrote:
Damn. You have a weirder name than I have. I didn't think it was
possible.
wrote:
possible.
Olrik
Dec 22, 2011, 11:16:30 PM12/22/11
to
On 2011-12-22 21:41, micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 22, 6:20 pm, Florian Kutscherauer<florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
> wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
No, it does not "speaks through those that represent it".
> On Dec 22, 6:20 pm, Florian Kutscherauer<florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
> wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
>>
>> Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
>> crap---including your own shit.
>>
>>> Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
>>
>> No, and I don't want to be.
>>
>>> This is stupid.
>>
>> My point exactly.
>>
>>> Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
>>> begining.
>>
>> If you knew what science actually /is/ you wouldn't talk about it like it
>> were a person.
>>
>>> Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot shoot, so it couldn't have shot
>> abysmally.
>>
>>> Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
>>
>> So apparently you don't know what science is. I'm not surprised.
>>
>> I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
>> need for you to even try.
>>
>> --
>> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.
>
> I do believe there are such things as the scientific and religious
> establishments which speak for themselves.
> Mitchell Raemsch; the prize in a tainted Cracker Jack box
Florian Kutscherauer
Dec 23, 2011, 12:37:16 AM12/23/11
to
Don Stockbauer wrote:
They're both Germanic. Yours isn't weird at all for a German name.
Quite ordinary, actually.
Quite ordinary, actually.
Florian Kutscherauer
Dec 23, 2011, 12:59:03 AM12/23/11
to
micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>> Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
>> crap---including your own shit.
>>
>>> Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
>>
>> No, and I don't want to be.
>>
>>> This is stupid.
>>
>> My point exactly.
>>
>>> Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
>>> begining.
>>
>> If you knew what science actually /is/ you wouldn't talk about it like
>> it were a person.
>>
>>> Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot shoot, so it couldn't have shot
>> abysmally.
>>
>>> Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
>>
>> So apparently you don't know what science is. I'm not surprised.
>>
>> I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
>> need for you to even try.
>
> Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>> micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
No, it does not. It doesn't speak at all.
>>> Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
>> Delusional idiots, on the other hand, are constantly throwing up "new"
>> crap---including your own shit.
>>
>>> Some of you may be privy to who I speak of.
>>
>> No, and I don't want to be.
>>
>>> This is stupid.
>>
>> My point exactly.
>>
>>> Science is in a better position to understand itself and the physical
>>> begining.
>>
>> If you knew what science actually /is/ you wouldn't talk about it like
>> it were a person.
>>
>>> Religions shot was abysmal with regards to that.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot shoot, so it couldn't have shot
>> abysmally.
>>
>>> Science has had the opportunity to correct itself which is wonderful.
>>
>> So apparently you don't know what science is. I'm not surprised.
>>
>> I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about, so there is no
>> need for you to even try.
>
> I do believe there are such things as the scientific and religious
> establishments which speak for themselves.
For themselves, maybe. But neither for the former nor for the latter.
> establishments which speak for themselves.
Don Martin
Dec 23, 2011, 8:42:50 AM12/23/11
to
"micro...@hotmail.com" <micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 6:20 pm, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
> wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
No. People claiming to represent religion generally _imagine_ themselves
> On Dec 22, 6:20 pm, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
> wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Religion has said that God created something in order to create.
>>
>> Religion is not a person. It cannot speak, so it didn't say anything.
>
> It speaks through those that represent it does it not?
to speak for it, but that is hardly the same thing.
--
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/
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 23, 2011, 3:07:20 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 22, 9:59 pm, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
wrote:
> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
wrote:
> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
Don Martin
Dec 23, 2011, 4:35:41 PM12/23/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:07:20 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
Nonexistence frees one of that bothersome obligation,
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
Florian Kutscherauer
Dec 23, 2011, 7:49:56 PM12/23/11
to
> God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
Have you ever heard of the phrases "circular reasoning" and "begging the
question," microbe? If so: Which one is more suitable to describe your
statement?
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 23, 2011, 8:04:34 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 23, 4:49 pm, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
In that case there is no strength of gravity.
Why has science not noticed before me?
There are inbetween strengths of gravity
And a maximum limit with a finite range
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
> Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you ever heard of a circular orbit?
>
> - Show quoted text -
In that case there is no strength of gravity.
Why has science not noticed before me?
There are inbetween strengths of gravity
And a maximum limit with a finite range
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Florian Kutscherauer
Dec 23, 2011, 8:33:20 PM12/23/11
to
micro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of the phrases "circular reasoning" and "begging
>> the question," microbe? If so: Which one is more suitable to describe
>> your statement?
Still haven't answered my questions.
> Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>> microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> God doesn't need to prove that He exists florian.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of the phrases "circular reasoning" and "begging
>> the question," microbe? If so: Which one is more suitable to describe
>> your statement?
> Have you ever heard of a circular orbit?
proved to be *elliptic* in the 17th century?
> In that case there is no strength of gravity.
> Why has science not noticed before me?
> There are inbetween strengths of gravity
> And a maximum limit with a finite range
> Mitchell Raemsch; the prize [is right ... but Mitchell isn't]
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 23, 2011, 9:06:50 PM12/23/11
to
Colanth
Dec 25, 2011, 4:39:11 PM12/25/11
to
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why has science not noticed before me?
Because you're that insignificant.
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why has science not noticed before me?
--
"Which is it: is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's
blunders?" - Friedrich Nietzsche
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 25, 2011, 7:58:42 PM12/25/11
to
On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
Let the cookie crumble.
There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>
> Because you're that insignificant.
But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>
> Because you're that insignificant.
Let the cookie crumble.
There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
Colanth
Dec 26, 2011, 9:16:02 PM12/26/11
to
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>>
>> Because you're that insignificant.
>
>But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
>Let the cookie crumble.
>There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>>
>> Because you're that insignificant.
>
>But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
>Let the cookie crumble.
>There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
--
The posting above is just this sig's way of propagating itself
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 26, 2011, 9:20:10 PM12/26/11
to
On Dec 26, 6:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
interesting universe that we live in.
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>
> >> Because you're that insignificant.
>
> >But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
> >Let the cookie crumble.
> >There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
>
> Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
> --
> The posting above is just this sig's way of propagating itself
If the strength of gravity can go away then it is a much more
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>
> >> Because you're that insignificant.
>
> >But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
> >Let the cookie crumble.
> >There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
>
> Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
> --
> The posting above is just this sig's way of propagating itself
interesting universe that we live in.
Colanth
Dec 27, 2011, 10:44:10 AM12/27/11
to
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:20:10 -0800 (PST), "micro...@hotmail.com"
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 6:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>>
>> >> Because you're that insignificant.
>>
>> >But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
>> >Let the cookie crumble.
>> >There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
>>
>> Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 6:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>>
>> >> Because you're that insignificant.
>>
>> >But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
>> >Let the cookie crumble.
>> >There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
>>
>> Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
>If the strength of gravity can go away
It can't. <moot nonsense snipped> The words don't even mean
anything. Gravity has no "strength".
--
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.
Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." - George W. Bush
micro...@hotmail.com
Dec 28, 2011, 11:29:34 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 27, 7:44 am, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:20:10 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
Mitchell Raemsch; the Nobel Prize
> <moot nonsense snipped> The words don't even mean
> anything. Gravity has no "strength".
> --
> "I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.
> Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." - George W. Bush- Hide quoted text -
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:20:10 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 26, 6:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>
> >> >> Because you're that insignificant.
>
> >> >But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
> >> >Let the cookie crumble.
> >> >There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
>
> >> Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
> >If the strength of gravity can go away
>
> It can't.
I can prove it.
>
>
>
>
> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 26, 6:16 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:58:42 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 25, 1:39 pm, Colanth <cola...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:04:34 -0800 (PST), "microm2...@hotmail.com"
>
> >> >> <microm2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Why has science not noticed before me?
>
> >> >> Because you're that insignificant.
>
> >> >But a circular orbit is not and I have pointed that out.
> >> >Let the cookie crumble.
> >> >There are inbetween strengths of gravity.
>
> >> Oil and vinegar or bleu cheese?
> >If the strength of gravity can go away
>
> It can't.
Mitchell Raemsch; the Nobel Prize
> <moot nonsense snipped> The words don't even mean
> anything. Gravity has no "strength".
> --
> "I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead.
0 new messages