Is it possible that by fabricating the "big bang" and "natural evolution" God just played a joke on the pompously negating Him scientists? (JP)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 4, 2008, 9:10:13 PM12/4/08
to
According to the Bible authorised by God Himself, the physical world
was created by God just only around 6 thousands years ago. But
according to the "body of evidence" that was dug out by the Earthly
scientists, our universe is already around 14 billions years old. So
one out of these two ages of the world must be untrue. Considering the
role which God performs towards people, we should NOT be suspecting
that God would tell a lie in the holy book that He authorises - which
is the Bible. Even if this God is just a "God-youngster" just 6-
thousands years old who still likes to play jokes. But simultaneously
we should NOT suspect that this 6-thousands year old omnipotent God-
youngster is completely deprived a sense of humour. Thus, with an
equal easiness as around 6 thousands years ago this God created the
physical world and humans, He could additionally invent, create, and
implant to the world that He created, this "body of evidence" on the
basis of which scientists estimate the age of the universe to be
around 14 billions years. After all, if God was able to create every
living creature, He was also able to create e.g. petrified skeletons
of dinosaurs feigning them so that they look as if they were extinct
several millions years ago. Since this omnipotent God was able to
create atoms of all chemical elements, with an equal easiness He could
also create geological layers and provide them with such attributes
that they allow to carry out the "conventional dating" used by Earthly
scientists. Since this God needed to experiment on, and perfect,
humans that He created, with an equal easiness He could also feign the
existence of a "natural evolution" and inspire Darwin to publish the
theory of it. The web page named "evolution.htm" analyses items of
evidence for just such a possibility that was NOT verified, as yet, by
anyone. Means it analyses the possibility that omnipotent God for
important reasons firstly invented and then implanted into the
physical world that He created, this additional, untrue, "simulated
history of the universe and man" (in addition to the true history
which God described in the Bible). In turn present scientists on the
Earth are taking this additional history invented by God for the true
history.

If God does NOT exist, while time would pass irreversibly - as this is
described by the present science, then all past events would occur
just once only, while the universe and man would have just a single
history. In such a case everything that scientists determine in the
result of researching the existing evidence would be an objective
truth. For example, the truth could be that there is just a single
history of the universe, that the universe originates from the "big
bang", that in fact there was a past which to people is told e.g. by
petrified skeletons of dinosaurs, and that man originates from a
natural evolution. But if there is the omnipotent God while time has a
reversible software nature - as this is described by the theory of
everything called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (while illustrates
the web page "immortality.htm" - about the access of people to
immortality and to the never-ending life), then all past events can be
changed by this God any number of times, until God accomplishes with
these changes such outcomes which He needs. In turn the universe and
man can have at least two histories - out of which only one is true,
while the remaining ones can be simulated by God in order to
accomplish some Godly goals. In such a case practically every "fact"
which scientists establish in the result of research on the body of
evidence present in the universe could be just a fantastic simulation
and illusion passed off upon people by God for some higher reasons.
For example, the history which is told by e.g. petrified skeletons of
dinosaurs would only be a kind of fantastic story which the omnipotent
God intentionally invented and for important reasons simulated into
the physical world that He was creating. In reality packs of dinosaurs
could never run over our planet - although God could create one or
several of them from each species just to check whether their bodies
and bones are realistic and work correctly in the physical world. The
web page named "evolution.htm" and indicated at the end of this post
is just about such second simulated (invented by God) history of the
universe and man, which in spite that it is confirmed by supposedly
"objective" evidence, in reality is the untrue history.

The previous paragraphs of this post explained to us the shocking fact
which most clearly NO-ONE considered before, and which to people was
revealed only by the most moral philosophy on the Earth called
totalizm (means the philosophy of discovering and stating truths - see
the web page named "totalizm.htm"). This fact reveals, that the
universe which surrounds us in fact has at least two different
histories. This true one is described in the Bible authorised by God
Himself - e.g. see the Biblical Book of Genesis (1:1 to 2:4). It
states that the physical world is just around 6000 years old, and that
together with humans it was created by God. But for important reasons,
independently from this "true history of the universe and mankind" God
clearly created also a completely different "simulated history of the
universe and man". This simulated history of the universe is a kind of
fantastic story which God intentionally invented and then "implanted"
into His final product that He created, means implanted into the Earth
and into the physical world. This story states approximately the same
that present scientists claim. In turn these scientists claim that
e.g. the universe is around 13.73 (with the accuracy +/-0.12) billion
years old, that the man originates from a "natural evolution" - NOT
from a creation by God, and that before people on the Earth horrifying
and barbaric "dinosaurs" used to live.

For some people the fact of the existence of two different histories
of the universe can seem to be a kind of "Godly cheating". After all,
these people do not understand that only people "cheat", while God
just creates new paths and opens for people increasingly wider
perspectives. Whatever God does, He always has for this extremely
important reasons. So let us now list most important reasons which
probably motivated God when He created this second, untrue, simulated
history of the universe and the man.
(1) Inspiring people to scientific searches. After all, if existed
just only one history of the universe and people, namely this true
one, then nothing would be for seeking and for researching. This is
because this history is described just in several sentences by the
Bible authorised by God Himself. As such, it does NOT inspire the
interest in people, neither it fascinates them. So no-one would wish
to research it. In turn without scientific research people would NOT
experience any progress. So in addition to this true history, God was
forced to invent and to implant into His creation, a kind of fabulous
history, which leads people from one discovery to another one,
stimulating their imagination and inspiring scientific research.

(2) Allowing the cultivation of atheistic view of the world by some
people. On several web pages of totalizm it was explained, that if the
humanity was composed of exclusively people who deeply believe in God,
then the humanity would live in caves until today and would NOT known
even a secret of fire. This is because people who deeply believe in
God are typically very passive, as their deep faith in God deprives
them the courage to carry out scientific research. The explanation of
this paradox the reader can find, amongst others, in item #F2 of the
web page "evil.htm" - about origins of all evil on the Earth, and in
item #A2 in the web page "will.htm" - about the impact of "free will"
at fate of the entire human civilisation. Therefore God is was forced
to give to people also another possibility of living according to the
atheistic view of the world. After all, such an atheistic view of the
world inspires people to research and to form a progress. So in order
to inspire amongst people such atheistic view of the world, God was
forced to create and to pass off upon people various encouragements
for creative scientific searches. In His superior wisdom God gave to
these encouragements a form of alternative history of the universe and
man, which present human science considers to be a "scientific
history".

(3) Illustrative demonstration to people the creative power of God. If
God does NOT introduce to the world that He created an invented
history of the kind which is being "discovered" by the present
science, then the history of the universe would be uninteresting and
deprived the ability to inspire. It would just reflect the fact that
God created planets, lands, seas, living creatures, and man. As such,
it would NOT demonstrate to people the creative power of God. In turn
people have tendencies to doubt and to negate the creative
capabilities of God. So in order to illustrate to people, how immense
is His creative power, into the world that He created, God implanted
this fantastic history of the universe that He make up. So when people
finally recognise the findings of the philosophy of totalizm and begin
to understand that this "simulated history of the universe and man"
which is discovered by the human science, is the untrue history, then
they simultaneously realise how huge is the power and capabilities of
God who was able to invent such a history and to implant it into the
fabric of the universe.

(4) Subjecting people to trials and to exams. For reasons explained
more extensively in item #F1 of the web page "evil.htm" - about
origins of all evil on the Earth, and in item #C6 of the web page
"god.htm" - about the secular and scientific understanding of God, God
continually subjects every inhabitant of the Earth to countless tests
and exams. Then, depending on outcomes of each such a test, God
qualifies a given person to appropriate category. Of course, in order
to be able to subject people to these trials and exams, God needs to
have a kind of "exam questions or exam problems" which every person
separately must then solve on his or on her own. The existence of two
contradictive histories of the world (i.e. (1) religious history, and
(2) atheistic history) is just one amongst such questions-problems to
be solved during the Godly trial-exam.

(5) Challenging people to seek well hidden truth. The main reason for
which God created the man is a more effective gathering of knowledge.
This reason I am explaining more comprehensively in items #B1 to #B3
of the web page "will.htm" - about the impact of "free will" at fate
of the entire human civilisation, and in item #C1 of the web page
"god.htm" - about scientific replies of the secular philosophy of
totalizm to basic questions about God. The need to increase the
knowledge is even more urgent because of the "young age" of our God.
So in order people could assist God in His searches for knowledge,
they must acquire specific kinds of attributes. Therefore, in order to
develop in people these attributes that God needs, God continually
challenges people with ever-increasingly ambitious challenges. One
amongst these challenges is the existence of two completely opposite
histories of the world, and the need that every person must take and
justify his or her own stand which one amongst these two histories he
or she considers to be true. This web page in fact becomes a part of
such a challenge.

(6) Masking from some people the fact that God in fact is still
"inexperienced youngster". The true history of the world reveals that
our God is still "inexperienced youngster" which still has a great
sense of humour and still likes to play jokes on people. After all, He
created the physical world just only around 6 thousands years ago.
Thus He Himself probably finished His self-evolution and gained the
self-consciousness only shortly before - as this is explained in "part
#B" of the web page "evolution.htm" referenced at the end of this
post. So even if several thousands of years passed from the moment of
the self-evolution of God and acquiring His self-awareness, until the
creation of the physical world and man, still the age of God probably
does NOT exceed even 10000 years. I personally suspect that the
"software God", described in "part #B" of the web page
"evolution.htm", is NOT older than around 7000 years. (Note that this
"software God" in Christianity is called the "Holy Ghost". We should
NOT confuse Him with the eternally existing "God Father" which in the
Bible is also called the "Ancient of Days".) In turn such a young age
of God really qualifies Him to the category of almost a "Godly
teenager". Although in the Bible authorised by God Himself, God
indirectly confirms the fact of His relatively "young age", in fact in
real life He is NOT very inclined to brag about this to every human
being. Probably for this reason God "added years to His age" in the
"simulated history of the universe and man", which He so invented and
fabricated as if the universe had already around 14 billions of years.
After all such an age inclines everyone to show respect.

(7) Documenting the God's sense of humour. The entire body of evidence
in existence, suggests that God has a magnificent sense of humour.
Furthermore, in times when God initiated the creation of the "body of
evidence" which for scientists provides a basis for formulation this
"simulated history of the universe and man", God already knew how
pompous and all-knowing human scientists are today. So probably one
amongst numerous motives of this young God who still likes to play
tricks on people, was to make a mock on Godly scale of these
scientists who pompously refuse to recognise His existence and who
behave as if they "have swallowed all brains".

At this point it is worth to add, that the sole fact of the existence
of so many and so vital reasons for the additional creation by God the
"simulated history of the universe and man", is also a confirmation
and a proof that God really gave to people these two opposite
histories of the world, namely (1) the true history - means the one
described in the Bible, and (2) the simulated history - means the one
that was invented by God and then skilfully implanted into the Godly
creation. Therefore also this proof I introduced to the list of proofs
from item #E1 in the further section of the web page named
"evolution.htm".

Since God promotes two histories of the universe and man, i.e. (1) the
true one (religious), and (2) simulated (scientific), then what stand
we people should take in the matter of these two histories? Well, our
choice is simple. Since the omnipotent God promotes two different
histories of the universe, this means that God wants us to learn both
of them equally thoroughly and treat them both equally. It seems that
God wants us to train our learning capabilities and skills of finding
the truth on both of them. Therefore our (people) task is to treat
both of them equally seriously and both of them research in details
and with fervour, so that both of them gain equal attention and
consideration. Also none of them can be discriminated only because
e.g. it does NOT agree with our view of the world. Only in our
statements and in our thinking we should clearly distinguish between
them both, e.g. through adding to each one of them some qualifiers in
order to emphasize about which history of the universe or man we just
talk or write.

The totaliztic web page named "evolution.htm", which was discussed
above, presents also a number of items of objective evidence in
support of the surprising fact that God actually authorises two
different histories of the universe.

The explanations presented above are adopted from items #A1, #A2 and
#E3 of the most recently updated version of the totaliztic web page
"evolution.htm", updated on 5 December 2008, or later. The latest
update of this web page with the highest priority is uploaded on
several historically longest used web sites of totalizm. These web
sites include http://members.fortunecity.com/timevehicle/evolution.htm
, http://ufonauci.w.interia.pl/evolution.htm , http://milicz.fateback.com/evolution.htm
and http://totalizm.nazwa.pl/evolution.htm .

With the secondary priority this web page is to be uploaded at a
number of further web sites (established more recently), for example
at http://fruit.xphost.org/evolution.htm or to http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/evolution.htm
.

It is also worth to notice that practically all totaliztic web pages
are available at each web site (address or server) of totalizm.
Therefore independently from the web page "evolution.htm", each
address (server) indicated here should also offer all other web pages
of totalizm - unless some of these web pages were sabotaged, or are so
new that I had no time yet to upload these at a given address
(server). (But in a case when for some reasons a page is unavailable
under a given address, still at this address a MENU should be
available which has links to other addresses (servers) of totalizm, on
which a given web page should already be accessible.) Thus, if someone
wishes to view descriptions from any other totaliztic web page, e.g.
from a web page listed in this post, or listed in other totaliztic
posts, then in the above addresses the name "evolution.htm" is just
enough to exchange for a name of the web page that he or she wishes to
view, e.g. for the name of web page "oscillatory_chamber.htm",
"eco_cars.htm", "boiler.htm", "fe_cell.htm", "free_energy.htm",
"telekinetics.htm", "dipolar_gravity.htm", "nirvana.htm",
"totalizm.htm", "evil.htm", "god.htm", "god_proof.htm", "bible.htm",
"evolution.htm", "wszewilki_jutra_uk.htm", "malbork_uk.htm",
"memorial.htm", "newzealand.htm", "partia_totalizmu_uk.htm",
"fruit.htm", "text_1_5.htm", "explain.htm", "day26.htm",
"ufo_proof.htm", "katrina.htm", etc., etc.

If at this address the above text is difficult to read, or links from
it refuse to work, then it is worth to know that this post is repeated
on several blogs of totalizm - where it carries the number #162E.
These blogs of totalizm can be accessed through following internet
addresses:
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.blox.pl/html
http://totalizm.myblog.net
On these blogs it is also worth to read the previous post number
#161E, which explains operation of the technical device (time vehicle)
which allows us to shift repetitively back in time, so that we could
live forever.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. These readers who wish to discuss any aspect of my theories or
inventions should be pleased to learn that the internet discussions on
almost all topic that I researched currently, including many of my
devices and inventions, are carried out in the internet already for a
long time. A list of topics just being discussed, as well as addresses
of subsequent threads in the Google discussion groups, where these
topics are exposed to public comments and receive my replies, is
provided in item #M3 of the totaliztic web page "immortality.htm" -
which is available at all addresses provided above. Readers who have
constructive comments about any matters relating to my research and
inventions, are encouraged to find addresses of these Google threads
from item #M3 of the web page "immortality.htm", and then voice their
constructive opinions at these addresses.

Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 4, 2008, 9:28:24 PM12/4/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> According to the Bible authorised by God Himself

WHICH god is that?

I've always liked Huitzilopochtli.

Sir Frederick

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 12:59:02 AM12/5/08
to
Is it possible that you take your personal
brain based virtual reality model as reality?
That model comes from genetics, gestation,
development, senses, and practiced stories.
The joke is on you, and a very impersonal
joke it is.

turtoni

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 1:17:11 AM12/5/08
to

Is microbiology determistic?

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 1:31:12 AM12/5/08
to
On 5 Dec, 02:28, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bless you, here's a hankie to blow your nose on. :P

Sir Frederick

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 2:16:30 AM12/5/08
to

About as much as your typos (deterministic).

turtoni

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 2:20:04 AM12/5/08
to
On Dec 5, 2:16 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:17:11 -0800 (PST), turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 5, 12:59 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >> Is it possible that you take your personal
> >> brain based virtual reality model as reality?
> >> That model comes from genetics, gestation,
> >> development, senses, and practiced stories.
> >> The joke is on you, and a very impersonal
> >> joke it is.
>
> >Is microbiology determistic?
>
> About as much as your typos (deterministic).

Freudian slips of the keystrokes (heh)

In answer to my question i guess we'd have to conclude that knowledge
is mystical aka interesting stories.

Dave Oldridge

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 4:12:28 AM12/5/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

>According to the Bible authorised by God Himself, the physical world
>was created by God just only around 6 thousands years ago. But

You start your post with a couple of bizarre assumptions. What makes you
think the Bible (in whichever form you prefer it) is authorized by God
Himself? And what makes you think it actually teaches that the physical
universe was created only 6000 years ago?

>according to the "body of evidence" that was dug out by the Earthly
>scientists, our universe is already around 14 billions years old. So
>one out of these two ages of the world must be untrue. Considering the
>role which God performs towards people, we should NOT be suspecting
>that God would tell a lie in the holy book that He authorises - which

Again with the assumption of divine authorization. When and where did
this authorization occur?

>is the Bible. Even if this God is just a "God-youngster" just 6-
>thousands years old who still likes to play jokes. But simultaneously
>we should NOT suspect that this 6-thousands year old omnipotent God-
>youngster is completely deprived a sense of humour. Thus, with an
>equal easiness as around 6 thousands years ago this God created the
>physical world and humans, He could additionally invent, create, and
>implant to the world that He created, this "body of evidence" on the
>basis of which scientists estimate the age of the universe to be
>around 14 billions years. After all, if God was able to create every

So YOUR deity is a liar, who misrepresents itself in both the creation
and the book? That's an unusual (or perhaps not so unusual these days)
and unorthodox (theologically) view.

[rest of long rant based on these errors deleted]

You're a troll, right? I mean if a spiritual entity actually claimed to
DO the things you impute to God, I'd break out bell, book and candle!


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283

clamato

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 7:59:40 AM12/5/08
to

I'm a Coatlicue guy myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coatlicue

Makes YAWEH look like a candy ass.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 8:23:58 AM12/5/08
to

I rather think any lady that wears a skirt of serpents is a bit odd.

But it makes me wonder, did she lose one when she went to play with
Elohim in the garden?

clamato

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 9:08:09 AM12/5/08
to

Loosed one.

Dragonblaze

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 10:04:38 AM12/5/08
to
On Dec 5, 2:28 am, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Nah, Ninkasi is the one.

Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 10:06:24 AM12/5/08
to

Heretic. Huitzilopochtli could take Ninkasi with one arm
tied behind his back.

Dragonblaze

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 6:20:44 PM12/5/08
to
On 5 Dec, 15:06, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> I've always liked Huitzilopochtli.
>
> > Nah, Ninkasi is the one.
>
> Heretic. Huitzilopochtli could take Ninkasi with one arm
> tied behind his back.

Most likely, unless Ninkasi got him drunk first, her being the Goddess
of Beer. ;-)

Robert Weldon

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 6:53:31 PM12/5/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
-reams of delusional crap snipped.

It is more than possible, it is a complete certainty, that you are a
complete and total loon.

clamato

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 7:32:06 PM12/5/08
to
On Dec 5, 5:53 pm, "Robert Weldon" <robo...@live.ca> wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

http://totalizm.nazwa.pl/god_proof.htm
absolutely proves it. He has a picture of Disney's
"Tree of Life" exhibition at Epcot Center as his proof.
Look at the pics on his page, then Google for
"Tree of Life Epcot Center" and you'll find dozens
of pictures of the same exhibition. After being
caught out by me, he has added the most
absolutely nutty excuse that goes on for pages,
but still uses the same image!

There are loons on the internet, but this guy
is about as far as you can go into lunacy before
being permanently committed to the hatch.

Immortalist

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 7:46:34 PM12/5/08
to
On Dec 4, 6:10 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> According to the Bible authorised by God Himself, the physical world
> was created by God just only around 6 thousands years ago. But
> according to the "body of evidence" that was dug out by the Earthly
> scientists, our universe is already around 14 billions years old. So
> one out of these two ages of the world must be untrue.

Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more.
Here are some other options;

The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book,
Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order
for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with
mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with
hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and
that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the
earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern
creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to
originate in far-off stars and galaxies, although many other
creationists reject this explanation (and also believe that Adam and
Eve had no navels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

Russell ... made an influential analysis of the omphalos hypothesis
enunciated by Philip Henry Gosse - that any argument suggesting that
the world was created as if it were already in motion could just as
easily make it a few minutes old as a few thousand years:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world
sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no
logically necessary connection between events at different times;
therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future
can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

— Bertrand Russell

The Omphalos hypothesis contains a powerful philosophic problem, one
that troubles even those who have applied it in recent times. Since
the hypothesis is based on the idea that apparent age is an illusion,
it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that world was created mere
minutes ago. Any memories you have of times before this were created
in situ, in exactly the same fashion that the fossils were. This idea
is sometimes called "Last Thursdayism" by its opponents, as in "the
world might as well have been created last Thursday."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

This view is not popular for various reasons:

1. It is unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any currently
available scientific method;

2. It can be interpreted as God having 'created a fake', which does
not sit well with most benevolent theistic theologies;

3. This philosophical approach, extended to other areas, has serious
negative implications for science as a whole.

This conception has therefore drawn harsh rebuke from some
theologians. Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, for example, preached
that Bertrand Russell's projection of Gosse's concept to such a recent
creation (discussed below), "like much of what Russell wrote and said,
is nonsense. 'Human beings', posited in being five minutes ago with
built-in 'memory' traces, would not be human beings. The suggestion is
logically incoherent."[3] The basis for Hebblethwaite's objection,
however, is the presumption of a God that would not deceive us about
our very humanity - an unprovable presumption that the omphalos
hypothesis rejects at the outset.

Many Jewish answers to the age of the Universe delve slightly into the
Omphalos hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 7:58:23 PM12/5/08
to
On Dec 5, 3:28 pm, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
...
> WHICH god is that?
...

Let us assume that you are correct and that there are numerous "gods".
Then (when there are more than on God) we would see wars between gods
- which for sure would be detectable or even visible for humans. These
wars between gods would persist until all gods, except for the
strogest one, were killed. So logic says that since there is NO wars,
this means that there is only ONE God left. In turn if there is just a
single God in the universe, then no matter what name you use to
indicate Him, still you are talking just about this ONE God. So it is
quite a funny way of dismissing my arguments which you used in this
thread, means by just making the use of fact that there are numerous
names used to describe the same God. It is as if you would try to
convince the reader that when someone uses different names like Ian,
Jan, John, Johan, Giovanno, or Juan, this someone belies that there
were different saints (not just a single St. John) who originally
introduced the name "John" to the Bible.

By thye way, on different threads that I wrote, a masked individual
who had your style of arguing, used to present your argument in a more
logical and elaborate way - for details check my threads listed in
item #M3 of the web page "immortality.htm" - which you can find at
addresses that are indicated in my original post from the beginning of
this thread.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. This only God that the philosophy of totalizm is describing, is
NOT like a powerful human. Actually this single God is a huge natural
program which resides in the liquid computer (called the "couter-
matter") from which all manifesatations are made - including human
bodies and all matter from the physical world. You can read how this
single God-program looks like and operates. Appropriate descriptions
are provided in "part #B" from the totaliztic web page "evolution.htm"
which I indicated in the original post of this thread.

clamato

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 8:03:33 PM12/5/08
to
On Dec 5, 6:46 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Russell ... made an influential analysis of the omphalos hypothesis
> enunciated by Philip Henry Gosse - that any argument suggesting that
> the world was created as if it were already in motion could just as
> easily make it a few minutes old as a few thousand years:
>
> "There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world
> sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
> population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no
> logically necessary connection between events at different times;
> therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future
> can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."
>
> — Bertrand Russell

Oh, it is so deeply dishonest to quote Russell out of context
in that way.

Russell was an enemy of Christianity and wrote "Why I Am Not
A Christian," which is still in print. Nothing is a "logical"
impossibility
in the physical world, and Russell was very well aware of that, as
have been all philosophers since the time of Hume.
But he would not intend us to believe that the thing was at all
probable or that we should believe that it is so by _any_ stretch
of the imagination.

Why don't you cite the exact place you read this? Why don't
you reproduce more of it in context? You are clearly dishonest
and trying to bullshit people.

Go ahead, cite your source.


Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 8:19:05 PM12/5/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 5, 3:28 pm, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> ...
>> WHICH god is that?
> ...
>
> Let us assume that you are correct and that there are numerous "gods".
>

Of COURSE I'm correct. There are THOUSANDS. You need a list?

TimK

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 11:03:23 PM12/5/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

> Thus, with an
> equal easiness as around 6 thousands years ago this God created the
> physical world and humans, He could additionally invent, create, and
> implant to the world that He created, this "body of evidence" on the
> basis of which scientists estimate the age of the universe to be
> around 14 billions years. After all, if God was able to create every
> living creature, He was also able to create e.g. petrified skeletons
> of dinosaurs feigning them so that they look as if they were extinct
> several millions years ago.

That's the beauty of an "argument" such as yours. There's simply no way to
refute it.
I can just as easily state that my Lord FSM created us all just 4 minutes
ago with our memories intact.

That's why science doesn't deal with the supernatural. It's infantile, and
no way for an adult to explain what is observed.
However, it works for young children and the devout.


TimK

unread,
Dec 5, 2008, 11:04:45 PM12/5/08
to

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9B6BC4462444...@69.16.185.247...

> janp...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>According to the Bible authorised by God Himself, the physical world
>>was created by God just only around 6 thousands years ago. But
>
> You start your post with a couple of bizarre assumptions. What makes you
> think the Bible (in whichever form you prefer it) is authorized by God
> Himself?

God had a holy ghost writer.


Immortalist

unread,
Dec 6, 2008, 1:37:23 AM12/6/08
to
On Dec 5, 5:03 pm, clamato <clam...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:46 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Russell ... made an influential analysis of the omphalos hypothesis
> > enunciated by Philip Henry Gosse - that any argument suggesting that
> > the world was created as if it were already in motion could just as
> > easily make it a few minutes old as a few thousand years:
>
> > "There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world
> > sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
> > population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no
> > logically necessary connection between events at different times;
> > therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future
> > can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."
>
> > — Bertrand Russell
>
> Oh, it is so deeply dishonest to quote Russell out of context
> in that way.
>
> Russell was an enemy of Christianity and wrote "Why I Am Not
> A Christian," which is still in print. Nothing is a "logical"
> impossibility
> in the physical world, and Russell was very well aware of that, as
> have been all philosophers since the time of Hume.
> But he would not intend us to believe that the thing was at all
> probable or that we should believe that it is so by _any_ stretch
> of the imagination.
>

Are you trying to say that Russell had a way to show how it is
impossible that the world just happened 5 minutes ago with all this
appearance of history? I have never seen any evidence he has provided
that would rule out this possibility.

More importantly though it looks as if you are fallaciously attempting
to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is
making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy
involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as
the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background,
etc.). This is not allowed in logic because a person's interests and
circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives
to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It
is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that
1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." ...the mere
fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make
it false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

> Why don't you cite the exact place you read this? Why don't
> you reproduce more of it in context? You are clearly dishonest
> and trying to bullshit people.
>
> Go ahead, cite your source.

I provided a link to wikipoopia, didn't you see it?

clamato

unread,
Dec 6, 2008, 9:49:12 AM12/6/08
to

Russell is saying that it is a minimal possibility, but _not_ saying
it is
something you should believe. The possibility is infinitesimal, and
he very well knew it.


>
> More importantly though it looks as if you are fallaciously attempting
> to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is
> making it simply out of self interest.

I am asserting that you are making a false claim by quoting out
of the context of what Russell intended. This is dishonest.

> In some cases, this fallacy
> involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as
> the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background,
> etc.).

No attack was made on your circumstances, etc. I just said you
were being dishonest and lying.

> This is not allowed in logic because a person's interests and
> circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
> being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives
> to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It
> is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
> affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
> This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that
> 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." ...the mere
> fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make
> it false.
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
>
> > Why don't you cite the exact place you read this?  Why don't
> > you reproduce more of it in context?  You are clearly dishonest
> > and trying to bullshit people.
>
> > Go ahead, cite your source.
>
> I provided a link to wikipoopia, didn't you see it?

That quote did not come from that article, which is noted
as neutrality desputed right inside itself. Here is the
(supposed) quote from Russell in the article:

"Bertrand Russell wrote, in The Analysis of Mind: 'there is no logical


impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five
minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that

"remembered" a wholly unreal past', and leaves it there. Where is the
rest that you
supposedly quoted coming from? Further, anyone can edit a wiki
article. Hell, I might
well have done so -- I have in the past edited wiki articles on
philosophy.

Now, stop quoting Russell out of context, since you clearly don't
understand
what he was getting at.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2008, 7:44:27 PM12/6/08
to
On Dec 6, 5:03 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> >  Thus, with an
> > equal easiness as around 6 thousands years ago this God created the
> > physical world and humans, He could additionally invent, create, and
> > implant to the world that He created, this "body of evidence" on the
> > basis of which scientists estimate the age of the universe to be
> > around 14 billions years. After all, if God was able to create every
> > living creature, He was also able to create e.g. petrified skeletons
> > of dinosaurs feigning them so that they look as if they were extinct
> > several millions years ago.
...

> That's the beauty of an "argument" such as yours. There's simply no way to
> refute it. I can just as easily state that my Lord FSM created us all just 4 minutes
> ago with our memories intact.
>
> That's why science doesn't deal with the supernatural. It's infantile, and
> no way for an adult to explain what is observed.
> However, it works for young children and the devout.

The difference between me giving dates 6 thousand years and 14 billion
years, and you giving 4 minutes ago, is that dates 6 thousand and 14
billion are based on the reliable evidence and allow to be verified
how they were derrived. In turn your claim of 4 minutes is just taken
from the ceiling, cannot be verified, and actually can be replaced
with any other number (e.g. 10, 88, or 14 000 000) and be equally
untrue. So whatever I am stating it has a merit, because it is based
on evidence. In turn whatever you are stating is just rubbish because
you took it from a ceiling.

In turn your speach on the behalf of science (that supposedly science
does NOT deal with supernatural) claims for you the rights which you
really DO NOT have. For example I am also a scientists (I believe that
a good one), and I object you speaking also on my behalf - stating
what I supposedly do or don't do. Actually I DO research
"supernatural" and this thread is a proof of it. I also have formally
proven that God does exist, using several different methods, amongst
others the method used in mathematical logic. Furthermore, so-far no-
one managed to undermine my proofs. (You can find my proof for the
existence of God also in Internet - e.g. see the totaliztic web page
"god. htm" or "god_proof.htm" at any address indicated in my original
post from the begining of this thread - e.g. at the address
http://members.fortunecity.com/timevehicle/god.htm .) I also believe
that other scientists would research supernatural as well - if they
get to know the "theory of everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar
Gravity" (also available at addresses indicated above, under the page-
name "dipolar_gravity.htm"). The reason why other scientists do NOT
investigate supernatural right now, is that until now there was NO
rational explanation for the existence of unexplaned phenomena. Only
the idea that there is another parallel "counter-world" which mirrors
our physical world and which is located at the other end of the
gravity dipole opens our window to rational investigations of
supernatural - for more details see this "theory of everything" called
the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity".

TimK

unread,
Dec 6, 2008, 7:55:42 PM12/6/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d3914c6-2831-4f96...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...


>The difference between me giving dates 6 thousand years and 14 billion
>years, and you giving 4 minutes ago, is that dates 6 thousand and 14
>billion are based on the reliable evidence and allow to be verified
>how they were derrived.

There is not one shred of scientific evidence in support of the earth being
6000 years old. Not one shred. It is no better than my 4 minutes. There is
only an interpretation of the bible, which is no rational thinking person's
source for any real explanation of what is observed in nature. It is not
scientific.


TimK

unread,
Dec 6, 2008, 7:58:21 PM12/6/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d3914c6-2831-4f96...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...

> For example I am also a scientists (I believe that
>a good one), and I object you speaking also on my behalf - stating
>what I supposedly do or don't do. Actually I DO research
>"supernatural" and this thread is a proof of it. I also have formally
>proven that God does exist, using several different methods, amongst
>others the method used in mathematical logic.

Oh, this is gonna be good...

maggie

unread,
Dec 7, 2008, 3:40:09 AM12/7/08
to
On Dec 4, 9:10 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> According to the Bible authorised by God Himself, the physical world
> was created by God just only around 6 thousands years ago. But
> according to the "body of evidence" that was dug out by the Earthly
> scientists, our universe is already around 14 billions years old. So
> one out of these two ages of the world must be untrue. Considering the
> role which God performs towards people, we should NOT be suspecting
> that God would tell a lie in the holy book that He authorises - which
> is the Bible. Even if this God is just a "God-youngster" just 6-
> thousands years old who still likes to play jokes. But simultaneously
> we should NOT suspect that this 6-thousands year old omnipotent God-
> youngster is completely deprived a sense of humour. Thus, with an

> equal easiness as around 6 thousands years ago this God created the
> physical world and humans, He could additionally invent, create, and
> implant to the world that He created, this "body of evidence" on the
> basis of which scientists estimate the age of the universe to be
> around 14 billions years. After all, if God was able to create every
> living creature, He was also able to create e.g. petrified skeletons
> of dinosaurs feigning them so that they look as if they were extinct
> several millions years ago. Since this omnipotent God was able to
> create atoms of all chemical elements, with an equal easiness He could
> also create geological layers and provide them with such attributes
> that they allow to carry out the "conventional dating" used by Earthly
> scientists. Since this God needed to experiment on, and perfect,
> humans that He created, with an equal easiness He could also feign the
> existence of a "natural evolution" and inspire Darwin to publish the
> theory of it. The web page named "evolution.htm" analyses items of
> evidence for just such a possibility that was NOT verified, as yet, by
> anyone. Means it analyses the possibility that omnipotent God for
> important reasons firstly invented and then implanted into the
> physical world that He created, this additional, untrue, "simulated
> history of the universe and man" (in addition to the true history
> which God described in the Bible). In turn present scientists on the
> Earth are taking this additional history invented by God for the true
> history.
>
> If God does NOT exist, while time would pass irreversibly - as this is
> described by the present science, then all past events would occur
> just once only, while the universe and man would have just a single
> history. In such a case everything that scientists determine in the
> result of researching the existing evidence would be an objective
> truth. For example, the truth could be that there is just a single
> history of the universe, that the universe originates from the "big
> bang", that in fact there was a past which to people is told e.g. by
> petrified skeletons of dinosaurs, and that man originates from a
> natural evolution. But if there is the omnipotent God while time has a
> reversible software nature - as this is described by the theory of
> everything called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (while illustrates
> the web page "immortality.htm" - about the access of people to
> immortality and to the never-ending life), then all past events can be
> changed by this God any number of times, until God accomplishes with
> these changes such outcomes which He needs. In turn the universe and
> man can have at least two histories - out of which only one is true,
> while the remaining ones can be simulated by God in order to
> accomplish some Godly goals. In such a case practically every "fact"
> which scientists establish in the result of research on the body of
> evidence present in the universe could be just a fantastic simulation
> and illusion passed off upon people by God for some higher reasons.
> For example, the history which is told by e.g. petrified skeletons of
> dinosaurs would only be a kind of fantastic story which the omnipotent
> God intentionally invented and for important reasons simulated into
> the physical world that He was creating. In reality packs of dinosaurs
> could never run over our planet - although God could create one or
> several of them from each species just to check whether their bodies
> and bones are realistic and work correctly in the physical world. The
> web page named "evolution.htm" and indicated at the end of this post
> is just about such second simulated (invented by God) history of the
> universe and man, which in spite that it is confirmed by supposedly
> "objective" evidence, in reality is the untrue history.
>
> The previous paragraphs of this post explained to us the shocking fact
> which most clearly NO-ONE considered before, and which to people was
> revealed only by the most moral philosophy on the Earth called
> totalizm (means the philosophy of discovering and stating truths - see
> the web page named "totalizm.htm"). This fact reveals, that the
> universe which surrounds us in fact has at least two different
> histories. This true one is described in the Bible authorised by God
> Himself - e.g. see the Biblical Book of Genesis (1:1 to 2:4). It
> states that the physical world is just around 6000 years old, and that
> together with humans it was created by God. But for important reasons,
> independently from this "true history of the universe and mankind" God
> clearly created also a completely different "simulated history of the
> universe and man". This simulated history of the universe is a kind of
> fantastic story which God intentionally invented and then "implanted"
> into His final product that He created, means implanted into the Earth
> and into the physical world. This story states approximately the same
> that present scientists claim. In turn these scientists claim that
> e.g. the universe is around 13.73 (with the accuracy +/-0.12) billion
> years old, that the man originates from a "natural evolution" - NOT
> from a creation by God, and that before people on the Earth horrifying
> and barbaric "dinosaurs" used to live.
>
> For some people the fact of the existence of two different histories
> of the universe can seem to be a kind of "Godly cheating". After all,
> these people do not understand that only people "cheat", while God
> just creates new paths and opens for people increasingly wider
> perspectives. Whatever God does, He always has for this extremely
> important reasons. So let us now list most important reasons which
> probably motivated God when He created this second, untrue, simulated
> history of the universe and the man.
> (1) Inspiring people to scientific searches. After all, if existed
> just only one history of the universe and people, namely this true
> one, then nothing would be for seeking and for researching. This is
> because this history is described just in several sentences by the
> Bible authorised by God Himself. As such, it does NOT inspire the
> interest in people, neither it fascinates them. So no-one would wish
> to research it. In turn without scientific research people would NOT
> experience any progress. So in addition to this true history, God was
> forced to invent and to implant into His creation, a kind of fabulous
> history, which leads people from one discovery to another one,
> stimulating their imagination and inspiring scientific research.
>
> (2) Allowing the cultivation of atheistic view of the world by some
> people. On several web pages of totalizm it was explained, that if the
> humanity was composed of exclusively people who deeply believe in God,
> then the humanity would live in caves until today and would NOT known
> even a secret of fire. This is because people who deeply believe in
> God are typically very passive, as their deep faith in God deprives
> them the courage to carry out scientific research. The explanation of
> this paradox the reader can find, amongst others, in item #F2 of the
> web page "evil.htm" - about origins of all evil on the Earth, and in
> item #A2 in the web page "will.htm" - about the impact of "free will"
> at fate of the entire human civilisation. Therefore God is was forced
> to give to people also another possibility of living according to the
> atheistic view of the world. After all, such an atheistic view of the
> world inspires people to research and to form a progress. So in order
> to inspire amongst people such atheistic view of the world, God was
> forced to create and to pass off upon people various encouragements
> for creative scientific searches. In His superior wisdom God gave to
> these encouragements a form of alternative history of the universe and
> man, which present human science considers to be a "scientific
> history".
>
> (3) Illustrative demonstration to people the creative power of God. If
> God does NOT introduce to the world that He created an invented
> history of the kind which is being "discovered" by the present
> science, then the history of the universe would be uninteresting and
> deprived the ability to inspire. It would just reflect the fact that
> God created planets, lands, seas, living creatures, and man. As such,
> it would NOT demonstrate to people the creative power of God. In turn
> people have tendencies to doubt and to negate the creative
> capabilities of God. So in order to illustrate to people, how immense
> is His creative power, into the world that He created, God implanted
> this fantastic history of the universe that He make up. So when people
> finally recognise the findings of the philosophy of totalizm and begin
> to understand that this "simulated history of the universe and man"
> which is discovered by the human science, is the untrue history, then
> they simultaneously realise how huge is the power and capabilities of
> God who was able to invent such a history and to implant it into the
> fabric of the universe.
>
> (4) Subjecting people to trials and to exams. For reasons explained
> more extensively in item #F1 of the web page "evil.htm" - about
> origins of all evil on the Earth, and in item #C6 of the web page
> "god.htm" - about the secular and scientific understanding of God, God
> continually subjects every inhabitant of the Earth to countless tests
> and exams. Then, depending on outcomes of each such a ...
>
> read more »

Just settle down, whoa up. If you've learned all this through study,
fine. If you've cut and pasted, that's apparently fine laas well, in
this environment. Too much stuff in one message. It requires a lot
of reading. A large time- expectation of others. You're not going
to change anyone's mind. That requires so much more than....here, or
any such place. No diversity here, no intelligent discussion.
And, no matter what you say....you will be assigned a label....idiot,
moron, skankwhore.... and creates a lashing environment to you.
You're baiting...just saying.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 7, 2008, 8:48:43 PM12/7/08
to
On Dec 7, 1:55 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> There is not one shred of scientific evidence in support of the earth being
> 6000 years old. Not one shred. It is no better than my 4 minutes. There is
> only an interpretation of the bible, which is no rational thinking person's
> source for any real explanation of what is observed in nature. It is not
> scientific.

To prove you that you are wrong, let us assume hypothetically that you
are right, and that the universe is really 14 billions years old (not
just around 6 thousands - as says the Bible), and that every living
creature originats from a purely random "natural evolution" - means it
was NOT created by God. In such a case, the mathematical probability
that there are other manifestations of God on the Earth is equally
small as the probability that first organisms were formed as the
outcome of natural evolution (means are at the level of around 1 : 10
to power around 18 - notice that mathematics consideres as never
existing or occurring everything the probability of which is equal or
smaller than 1 : 10 to power 5). Practically this means that in the
world which was started with a "big bang" and which is populated by
creatures that "evolved naturally", we would never experience any
miracle, divine intervention, faith healing, supernatural, ghosts,
life after death, nor any other manifestations of the Godly powers.
After all, the probability of just a small "natural miracle" is even
smaller than the probability of a "natural evolution".

In spite of the above, almost every person experiences in his or her
life various miracles and other manifestations of God, which have no
"natural" explanation. For example, one amongst my miracles is
described on the totaliztic web page "malbork.htm" available from
addresses that I mentioned at the beginning of this web page. I also
saw with my own eyes various other miracles - e.g. alive fish falling
from heaven. The point which I am making here is that since there are
manifestations of God, there is also God. In turn since there is God,
then this God created the Earth and universe, as He honestly describes
this for us in the Bible.

The only problem that God has, is that He must maintain on the Earth
certain proportion of people with atheistoc views. In other words, God
must keep people in the lack of certainty about His existence - as I
described this on many web pages of totalizm (e.g. see "part #F" of
the web page "evil.htm"). So the simplest way to push some people into
atheistic views, was to make up a second (untrue) history of the world
and universe - means the history which scientists are now piecing
together but which God invented and implented into the universe just
to "reassure" atheists (ie. which I described in my original thread
above).

TimK

unread,
Dec 7, 2008, 9:10:55 PM12/7/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0f0a8d4-8027-4820...@k24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 7, 1:55 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> There is not one shred of scientific evidence in support of the earth
> being
> 6000 years old. Not one shred. It is no better than my 4 minutes. There is
> only an interpretation of the bible, which is no rational thinking
> person's
> source for any real explanation of what is observed in nature. It is not
> scientific.

>"To prove you that you are wrong, let us assume hypothetically that you
>are right, and that the universe is really 14 billions years old (not
>just around 6 thousands - as says the Bible), and that every living
>creature originats from a purely random "natural evolution" - means it
>was NOT created by God."

Natural selection is not always random. It might be unpredictable, but
that's not the same as random.


"n such a case, the mathematical probability
that there are other manifestations of God on the Earth is equally
small as the probability that first organisms were formed as the
outcome of natural evolution (means are at the level of around 1 : 10
to power around 18 - notice that mathematics consideres as never
existing or occurring everything the probability of which is equal or
smaller than 1 : 10 to power 5). "

Source please. This faulty logical treat the entire earth as a single "coin
toss" which it most certainly was not. I would expect a first year stats
student to figure that out.

snip

>"...st every person experiences in his or her


>life various miracles and other manifestations of God, which have no
>"natural" explanation. For example, one amongst my miracles is
>described on the totaliztic web page "malbork.htm" available from
>addresses that I mentioned at the beginning of this web page. I also
>saw with my own eyes various other miracles - e.g. alive fish falling
>from heaven. The point which I am making here is that since there are
>manifestations of God, there is also God. In turn since there is God,
>then this God created the Earth and universe, as He honestly describes
>this for us in the Bible."

There are no miracles - just unlikely events. As so many science deniers
are, you are fucking clueless about probability. Here's an experiment (a
demonstration really) that even a god-soaked idiot like you can do at home.
Shuffle a card deck very well. Lay them out and note the order. The
probability of that order happening is something on the order of one in
8^67 provided excel really does know how to do a factorial.

In addition to not understanding how to assess probabilities, you also don't
understand chemistry. The chemical reactions that led to the first cell
were, again, NOT RANDOM. There are driven by thermodynamics etc.
Please stop playing at science - you are not qualified. The only thing
you've demonstrated is that you don't know what random means.


TimK

unread,
Dec 7, 2008, 9:12:04 PM12/7/08
to

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 8, 2008, 7:35:11 PM12/8/08
to
On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> Please stop playing at science - you are not qualified. The only thing
> you've demonstrated is that you don't know what random means.

This is typical - when one runs of logical arguments and empirical
evidence, but still tries to pretend that is right, then typically
acuses the oponent of being stupid, icompetent, not knowintg what is
saying, etc. So I cannot argue with such your "arguments".

However, whatever you say in support of your claim that I am at wrong
while you are right, it still does NOT change many facts. For example
it does NOT change the fact that many people see miracles (I was one
amongst them). It also does NOT change the fact that all religions of
the world are based on such miracles and on phenomena which cannot be
explained rationally just on the basis of known laws of physic,
chemistry, biology, etc. In turn the sole fact that there are miracles
(or whatever you "scientifically" are going to call them) in
combination with the fact that in the universe ruled just by these
laws of physic, chemistry, biology, etc. - should NOT be "miracles" at
all, certifies that YES, God does exist. In turn the fact that God
does exist, means that God must have certain "policies" and "ways of
acting" towards people. From the research of philosophy of totalizm
stems that one of such God's "policy", or "way of acting", towards
people is that "people must earn their certainty of the God's
existence". In turn to make people to EARN the certainty of God's
existence, God must provide two equally "good" explanations for
everything. So also for the creation man and for the origins of the
universe God provided such two opposite explanations, namely one
"atheistic" - which is investigated by the human science, and one
"religious" - which is explained in the Bible. Of course, since there
are two opposite explanations for the origins of man and the universe,
only one of these two can be true. As I explained this in my original
post from the beginning of this thread, this true one is the one
provided in the Bible. The other explanation (pursued by the official
science) is untrue, means just being "make up" by God Himself and
skillfully implented into the physical world that God created.

I DO NOT try to convince you to truths that I am disseminating. After
all, the honour of being able to learn the truth about God one needs
to EARN - you obviously did NOT earned it yet. I am only providing
this explanation for these readers who are mature enough to understand
it - means who almost earned it, and now just need to find a source
where they can read it and appreciate it. So let's NOT spit at each
other, but go our separtate ways. We do NOT need to compete for any
food or other resources, so there is no need for us to fight.

Robert Weldon

unread,
Dec 8, 2008, 7:38:44 PM12/8/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d3914c6-2831-4f96...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...

:Actually, no, you are not a scientist, you are an engineer, big difference.
You are also a fundie loon, :and close to being clinically insane.

-rest of insane screed snipped

Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 8, 2008, 7:46:48 PM12/8/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> So I cannot argue with such your "arguments".

THERE'S a surprise.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 8, 2008, 10:17:21 PM12/8/08
to
On Dec 9, 1:38 pm, "Robert Weldon" <robo...@live.ca> wrote:
...

> :Actually, no, you are not a scientist, you are an engineer, big difference.
> You are also a fundie loon, :and close to being clinically insane.
>
> -rest of insane screed snipped

Wow, I believed that I am taking a part in rational discussion. But it
turns out that I am on a spitting and mud throwing competition. Let me
know if you have some constructive criticism of the empirical evidence
which I am explaining in this thread. After all, in spitting and in
mud throwing I do NOT intend to compete with you (I acknowledge that
you are master in such skills).

What intrigues me the most, is why these ones who adhere to atheistic
views encounter someone who really have scientific evidence, so that
is able to prove that they are wrong and that God does exist, then
instead of constructively discussing this evidewnce they resort to
spitting and to mud throwing. Is it possible that they have something
to loose if God does exist, and therefore they feel really threaten by
God?

Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 9, 2008, 6:19:20 AM12/9/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> What intrigues me the most, is why these ones who adhere to atheistic
> views encounter someone who really have scientific evidence, so that
> is able to prove that they are wrong and that God does exist,

No such evidence exists. No such evidence is POSSIBLE.

Sorry, sport.

TimK

unread,
Dec 9, 2008, 6:09:53 PM12/9/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2efbeb46-230c-40fe...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 8, 3:10 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> Please stop playing at science - you are not qualified. The only thing
> you've demonstrated is that you don't know what random means.

>This is typical - when one runs of logical arguments and empirical
>evidence, but still tries to pretend that is right, then typically
>acuses the oponent of being stupid, icompetent, not knowintg what is
>saying, etc. So I cannot argue with such your "arguments".

And rather than reply to a single fucking one of them you just snip them.
I stated you don't know what random means and you make no reply.
Pussy

>However, whatever you say in support of your claim that I am at wrong
>while you are right, it still does NOT change many facts. For example
>it does NOT change the fact that many people see miracles (I was one
>amongst them).

Once again, halfwit,
there are no miracles, just improbable events.


>It also does NOT change the fact that all religions of

>the world are based on such miracles ...

There's the irony right over your empty head.


>...and on phenomena which cannot be


>explained rationally just on the basis of known laws of physic,
>chemistry, biology, etc. In turn the sole fact that there are miracles
>(or whatever you "scientifically" are going to call them) in
>combination with the fact that in the universe ruled just by these
>laws of physic, chemistry, biology, etc. - should NOT be "miracles" at
>all, certifies that YES, God does exist.

What breathtakingly circular logic.

snip god babble

>We do NOT need to compete for any
>food or other resources, so there is no need for us to fight.

We just pray and they drop out of the sky, is that what you mean?

Moron


TimK

unread,
Dec 9, 2008, 6:10:46 PM12/9/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f210c5a-e87d-479b...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


>Wow, I believed that I am taking a part in rational discussion.

Like hell you were.


janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 9, 2008, 7:38:48 PM12/9/08
to
TimK wrote:
...
> Please stop playing at science - you are not qualified.
...

> Once again, halfwit,
> there are no miracles, just improbable events.
...

...
> There's the irony right over your empty head.
...
> Moron

Wow, if you could get one dollar for every swear-word that you are
giving out, you would be a rich person. Although judging by your
behaviour you would NOT enjoy your wealth - even if you have it.

Anyway, ruturning some contructive elements to our discussion,
whenever for "miracles" you use the correct name "miracles", or you
try to deviate and devaluate their meaning by calling them
"scientifically" with words "improbable events", the truth is that
they DO EXIST, and that the only reason why they are seen by so many
people is that they are caused by God. As you know, the so-called
"orthodox science" (i.e. present official science) is unable to
develop a rational explanation which would reveal how such "miracles"
can happen. After all, the improbability of occurring a "miracle" is
equal to the improbability of occurring a natural evolution - means
also at the level of 1 to 10 to power 40 000th. In turn, since the
omnipotent God exists and makes these "miracles", then this God is
also able to create two (not just one) histories of the universe. The
true one amongst these two histories is for these people who seek
truth and who fight for truth. In turn the simulated history of the
universe, means the one that the official science is pursuing, is for
these ones who reject the truth and insist in maintaining the "natural
illusions". You obviously wish to remain in illusion - so good luck
for you. I myself believe in seeking the truth and this is why I
developed the awareness that there are two different histories - as
described in this thread. Since there are others like me, I am
dedicating this thread to them, so that they could obtain a clearer
idea "why" they are correct in their thinking and "what scientific
evidence" supports their view of the world.

TimK

unread,
Dec 9, 2008, 7:54:25 PM12/9/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2892c38c-77ed-4cd1...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

> After all, the improbability of occurring a "miracle" is
> equal to the improbability of occurring a natural evolution - means
> also at the level of 1 to 10 to power 40 000th.

It's hard to put a price on your type of ignorance. You have been corrected
and pointed to sources and yet you continue to remain blissfully ignorant in
your god-soaked stupidity. I won't even bother to ask for a source for your
moronic statement above. You have none. All you have is your "faith." In the
realm of science that's an empty intellect.
You've done your village proud.


Robert Weldon

unread,
Dec 9, 2008, 8:47:34 PM12/9/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f210c5a-e87d-479b...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 9, 1:38 pm, "Robert Weldon" <robo...@live.ca> wrote:
...
> :Actually, no, you are not a scientist, you are an engineer, big
> difference.
> You are also a fundie loon, :and close to being clinically insane.
>
> -rest of insane screed snipped

Wow, I believed that I am taking a part in rational discussion. But it
turns out that I am on a spitting and mud throwing competition. Let me
know if you have some constructive criticism of the empirical evidence
which I am explaining in this thread. After all, in spitting and in
mud throwing I do NOT intend to compete with you (I acknowledge that
you are master in such skills).

Ok, provide some epirical evidence and we can start.

What intrigues me the most, is why these ones who adhere to atheistic
views encounter someone who really have scientific evidence, so that
is able to prove that they are wrong and that God does exist, then
instead of constructively discussing this evidewnce they resort to
spitting and to mud throwing. Is it possible that they have something
to loose if God does exist, and therefore they feel really threaten by
God?

That's the problem, you don't have scientific evidence, you have loonscreed.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 8:59:06 PM12/10/08
to
On Dec 10, 1:54 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >  After all, the improbability of occurring a "miracle" is
> > equal to the improbability of occurring a natural evolution - means
> > also at the level of 1 to 10 to power 40 000th.
...

> It's hard to put a price on your type of ignorance. You have been corrected
> and pointed to sources and yet you continue to remain blissfully ignorant in
> your god-soaked stupidity. I won't even bother to ask for a source for your
> moronic statement above. You have none. All you have is your "faith." In the
> realm of science that's an empty intellect.
> You've done your village proud.

Funny, this time you are spitting and mud throwing NOT at me, but at a
famous astronomer who derrived these probability (or rather
"improbability") numbers (1:10^40000) which illustrate how improbable
"natural evolution" really is - for details of his publications and
findings see item #D3 on the most recent update (dated on 9 December
2008, or later) of my web page "evolution.htm" that I referenced in my
initial post at the beginning of this thread. This astronomer was a
scientist too, but obviously NOT so clese minded like many present
"fighters for untruth called evolution".

Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 9:06:45 PM12/10/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Funny, this time you are spitting and mud throwing NOT at me, but at a
> famous astronomer who derrived these probability (or rather
> "improbability") numbers (1:10^40000) which illustrate how improbable
> "natural evolution" really is

Only if you're completely ignorant of chemistry and thermodynamics.

TimK

unread,
Dec 10, 2008, 10:10:33 PM12/10/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8927012-8e38-4fd0...@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 10, 1:54 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > After all, the improbability of occurring a "miracle" is
> > equal to the improbability of occurring a natural evolution - means
> > also at the level of 1 to 10 to power 40 000th.
...
> It's hard to put a price on your type of ignorance. You have been
> corrected
> and pointed to sources and yet you continue to remain blissfully ignorant
> in
> your god-soaked stupidity. I won't even bother to ask for a source for
> your
> moronic statement above. You have none. All you have is your "faith." In
> the
> realm of science that's an empty intellect.
> You've done your village proud.

>Funny, this time you are spitting and mud throwing NOT at me, but at a
>famous astronomer who derrived these probability (or rather
>"improbability") numbers (1:10^40000) which illustrate how improbable

>"natural evolution" really is - ...

An *astronomer* - fuck him anyway. Jeeze, how seriously would a biologist be
taken making some similar statement about astronomy?
Here's why he's dead wrong:
Chemistry is not random. You lot seem to have a lot of trouble with this so
I'll repeat - chemistry is not random. Molecules don't come together or
not based on random actions. They do so based on chemistry, - energy states
etc.

Second, he incorrectly treats the entire planet as a single coin toss. Every
mineral surface is the coin toss.

So to summarize, he's wrong about the main assumption about it being a
random process, and he's wrong about his calculation of probability. This is
what happens when people who aren't bio-chemists play at biochemistry.


Wombat

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 1:24:52 AM12/11/08
to

Fred Hoyle is dead. In his own field, he proposed and defended the
now defunct "Steady State" theory. With a colleague, he championed
panspermia. With the same colleague he posited that insects are
smarter than humans but are not letting on.
Are you sure he is a good reference?

Wombat

Free Lunch

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 7:57:50 PM12/11/08
to
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:59:06 -0800 (PST), janp...@gmail.com wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

The numbers are not derived from any physical model.

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 8:59:52 PM12/11/08
to
On Dec 11, 4:10 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> Chemistry is not random. You lot seem to have a lot of trouble with this so
> I'll repeat -  chemistry is not random. Molecules don't come together  or
> not based on random actions. They do so based on chemistry, - energy states
> etc.
...

> Second, he incorrectly treats the entire planet as a single coin toss. Every
> mineral surface is the coin toss.
...

> So to summarize, he's wrong about the main assumption about it being a
> random process, and he's wrong about his calculation of probability. This is
> what happens when people who aren't bio-chemists play at biochemistry.
...
You really do NOT understand what you are talking about. YES, the
"effects" of chemistry are NOT random, when these effects are obtained
due to non-random "causes" supervised by an intelligent being - e.g.
by a chemistry engineer in some chamical plant. But when you talk of
"evolution", you are talking about "random causes" - as there was NO a
chemistry engineer who would bring together all ingredients needed for
a given chamical process to occur. This is because in evolution
various elements needed to freely float in a "chamical soup" until all
components of given organic matter were brought together by a pure
"coincident". Only then a chemical process could occur thus producing
a non-random effect. In other words, in "evolution" chemistry still
was completely "random". So please do NOT repeat this your embarassing
statements, bacause you just indicate with them that you do NOT know
what you are talking about.

By the way, as research shows, the "selection" of partners in human
couples also is NOT "random" from the "causes" point of view, as both
men and women intuitivelly know whom they are searching for. Yet, for
some couples it takes tens of years to find a partner that they
intuitively seek, while some other people remain single all the life
through. So do NOT tell us that the selection or chemistry is NOT
random. Only "effects" of chemical processes are NOT random, while the
"causes" of these processes in case of "natural evolution" for sure
were absolutely random. (Of course, assuming that it was really a
"natual evolution", not the creation intelligently carried out and
supervised by God.)

In other words, you are NOISY as if you are right, but you are wrong
in very basics of your statements.

Tim_Miller

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 9:09:48 PM12/11/08
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:emists play at biochemistry.

>
> In other words, you are NOISY as if you are right, but you are wrong
> in very basics of your statements.

Christ on a bicycle, son you really DON'T have a fucking clue about
chemistry, physics, thermodynamics OR statistics.

Take a DEEP breath, and go back to your fairy tales.

Ignore science. You'll be MUCH happier.

TimK

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 9:33:41 PM12/11/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a63b52fd-be41-414d...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

...
>You really do NOT understand what you are talking about. YES, the
>"effects" of chemistry are NOT random, when these effects are obtained
>due to non-random "causes" supervised by an intelligent being - e.g.
>by a chemistry engineer in some chamical plant. But when you talk of
>"evolution", you are talking about "random causes" - as there was NO a
>chemistry engineer who would bring together all ingredients needed for
>a given chamical process to occur. This is because in evolution
>various elements needed to freely float in a "chamical soup" until all
>components of given organic matter were brought together by a pure
>"coincident". Only then a chemical process could occur thus producing
>a non-random effect. In other words, in "evolution" chemistry still
>was completely "random". So please do NOT repeat this your embarassing
>statements, bacause you just indicate with them that you do NOT know
>what you are talking about.

There is so much wrong with what you've written that it's hard to know where
to begin.
So I'll begin here - fuck you asshole. How dare you tell me I don't know
what I'm talking about when you obviously have never spent a moment of your
pathetic little life studying solution chemistry. If you had you'd know how
idiotic your post is.

Let's begin with this gem:

"YES, the
>"effects" of chemistry are NOT random, when these effects are obtained
>due to non-random "causes" supervised by an intelligent being - e.g.
>by a chemistry engineer in some chamical plant. "

You do realize, do you not, that chemical reactions take place without
chemical engineers being anywhere near them? Have you never heard of a
spodic soil horizon? Of curse you haven't. Sesquioxides of Fe and Al form
organo-complexes due to leaching of organic matter from the upper 2 feet of
soil leaving a dense organic pan at 2.5 to 3 feet in depth. And no engineer
had a fucking thing to do with it, moron.

Then there's this beauty"

"But when you talk of

>"evolution", you are talking about "random causes..."

As so many of the god-soaked seem to, you have also have a very misconceived
notion of what random means. Random means that every member of the
population has an equal probability of undergoing X, whatever X is.
Mutation, being picked for a survey, whatever - the p(being picked) must be
equal. That's not how evolution works. It is not random - that's the whole
point to it. Fool.

This:

"This is because in evolution
>various elements needed to freely float in a "chamical soup" until all
>components of given organic matter were brought together by a pure
>"coincident". Only then a chemical process could occur thus producing
>a non-random effect. In other words, in "evolution" chemistry still
>was completely "random". "

There is so much wrong here that I'll just ridicule you for all of it at
once. Gene frequencies change in organisms, not "chemical soup" you
fuckwitted buffoon.

"By the way, as research shows, the "selection" of partners in human
couples also is NOT "random" from the "causes" point of view, as both
men and women intuitivelly know whom they are searching for. Yet, for
some couples it takes tens of years to find a partner that they
intuitively seek, while some other people remain single all the life
through. "

Idiotic analogy that has nothing to do with chemistry.
Moron


"So do NOT tell us that the selection or chemistry is NOT
random. "

Fuck you snapperhead - I'll tell you the way it is and you'll like it.
Better yet, don't take my word for it. Go to a library and read a chemistry
book.


" Only "effects" of chemical processes are NOT random, while the
"causes" of these processes in case of "natural evolution" for sure
were absolutely random. "

Listen up shitforbrains, when you mistakenly claim that evolution is random,
you are claiming that ALL MEMBERS of a population have an equal probability
of undergoing genetic changes. That is absurd as the machinery of the cell
that repairs mutations is itself genetic. You're to fucking ignorant to know
the difference between random and unpredictable.
You're just a fucking layperson playing at a science you don't begin to
understand.
So piss off pinhead.


janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2008, 8:26:29 PM12/12/08
to
On Dec 12, 3:33 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...
> You do realize, do you not, that chemical reactions take place without
> chemical engineers being anywhere near them? Have you never heard of a
> spodic soil horizon? Of curse you haven't. Sesquioxides of Fe and Al form
> organo-complexes due to leaching of organic matter from the upper 2 feet of
> soil leaving a dense organic pan at 2.5 to 3 feet in depth. And no engineer
> had a fucking thing to do with it, moron.

You again are talking about the situation, when all elements taking
part in a given chamical reaction were already brough together by some
processes, either by intellignet actions of farmers, or by work of
nature. So it is NOT a "random" process at all by its nature. In turn
the "natural evolution" supposedly was initiated in seas, where NO
FARMER supposed to act and bring required components together. This is
why we are talking about "soup" when considering the initial stage of
evolution. In such "soup" formed by sea water, averything, of course,
must happen by a pure chance, including bringing together all chemical
elements that are to take part in a given synthesis of e.g. a
protein.

...


> >various elements needed to freely float in a "chamical soup" until all
> >components of given organic matter were brought together by a pure
> >"coincident". Only then a chemical process could occur thus producing
> >a non-random effect. In other words, in "evolution" chemistry still
> >was completely "random". "
>
> There is so much wrong here that I'll just ridicule you for all of it at
> once. Gene frequencies change in organisms, not "chemical soup" you
> fuckwitted buffoon.

...
Now I understand why you are wrong. You simply by "natural evolution"
understand only the last stage of it, meaning only when we have
already one species, and God changes the genetic structure of this one
species into another species. This topic we can discusss separately,
as your understanding of "genes" is till wrong - but perhaps we do it
in another thread. On the other hand, the majority of people have
reservations to the very beginning of "natural evolution", e.g. to the
moment when first "proteins" and other componets of living organisms
were created by God. So we were talking of two different matters - no
wonder that you totally are "missing the ponit". Of course, even when
talking of different stages of evolution, whatever I said, it still
stays valid.

TimK

unread,
Dec 12, 2008, 10:40:08 PM12/12/08
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0e6a290-17fa-470a...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...


>You again are talking about the situation, when all elements taking
>part in a given chamical reaction were already brough together by some
>processes, either by intellignet actions of farmers, or by work of
>nature. So it is NOT a "random" process at all by its nature.

Wrong wrong wrong. It is non-random by virtue of the nature of some
molecules/ions bonding with others ore or less readily. That is very
different than your nonsense.


>In turn
>the "natural evolution" supposedly was initiated in seas, where NO
>FARMER supposed to act and bring required components together. This is
>why we are talking about "soup" when considering the initial stage of
>evolution. In such "soup" formed by sea water, averything, of course,
>must happen by a pure chance, including bringing together all chemical
>elements that are to take part in a given synthesis of e.g. a
>protein.

Have you heard of vicinal water?
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html
This is a good site as it is very lay-person friendly.

"It has long been known that the intracellular water very close to any
membrane or organelle (sometimes called vicinal water) is organized very
differently from bulk water, and that this structured water plays a
significant role in governing the shape (and thus biological activity) of
large folded biopolymers. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the
structure of the water in these regions is imposed solely by the geometry of
the surrounding hydrogen bonding sites. "

We don't really believe that it was in a pool in the ocean now so much as
probably in an estuary were a receding tide or salinity gradient produced a
gradient in ionic strength. You need to read about this stuff because you
aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with pretty much al of chemistry.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages