The guy who tries to relive playing with mommy's keys....

[Stix]

John P. Boatwright posted the following to alt.atheism,

>Well, let's just get into it here. Simple question that trashes
>evolution for good:

Oh I just *BET* it does....

>WHY DOES A MAN HAVE A BEARD AND WOMEN DON'T?????

Hormones, dimwit. Feed a female enough testosterone and she will also grow
a beard. Feed a man enough oestrogen and not only will he cease to grow a
beard, he'll also grow tits.

> WHAT WAS THE
>EVOLUTIONARY FORCE THAT CAUSED THIS???? WHAT WAS THE EVOLUTIONARY
>FORCE THAT DELAY'S MEN HAVING BEARDS UNTILL LATER IN LIFE???

John, do you really think that shouting your absurd questions somehow
further validates them? Ever hear of puberty/adolescence? Well, actually I
suspect you're only going through both right now but don't worry, it'll
make more sense as you reach adulthood.

Anyway, the pituitary gland only kicks in at the start of adolescence. Why
don't you try researching your silly questions instead of babbling them
incredulously at people?

>DON'T HUMANS ALWAYS NEED BEARDS??? IF THEY DON'T NEED THEM, WHY DO
>MEN GET THEM LATER IN LIFE???

SAME REASON A MANS BALLS ONLY BECOME FERTILE AS HIS BODY MATURES!!!!!
SAME REASON WOMEN DON'T HAVE TITS FROM BIRTH!!!
HORMONES, BOY, HORMONES.

>I won't wait for your answer (like you have any ideas).

Done. Next!

>Hey I'm still waiting for that "10cm volume of vacuum to
>generate ANY hydrogen mass" question to get answered.
>IT'S ONLY THE BASIS FOR ALL BIG BANG THEORIES, yet it's
>ALWAYS left unanswered.

sigh. MUST you stoop to lies? I've already posted the current understanding
of the big bang several times. Your stupid non-question has BEEN answered,
fool. Wake the fuck up.

> In fact, IT'S THE BASIS FOR ALL EXISTANCE, once you delete God.

Why delete what's never been there? The god-concept is an outdated
non-answer invented by primitive people who knew no better. Try reading
"The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," by
Julian Jaynes.
Hint: you'll need to unstrap your bible from your face.

>I won't wait for your answer here either.

Been done. Next!

> Let's just get real and say, PHYSICISTS are basing all existance
>on MAGIC CREATED THE UNIVERSE, with NO EVIDENCE to back
>up the claims.

Liar. We have a fine understanding all the way down to 10^-43 seconds, and
what happened during that final infinitesimally small time will be answered
when we eventually work out the Grand Unification Theory. It is your
god-concept that relies on magic, John.

> The simple claim that NOTHING caused the big bang.

Just like nothing causes radioactive decay. Just like nothing causes
quantum fluctuations. Just like nothing causes virtual particles......

Just like nothing caused your god-thingumy.....well, yes it did. The
primitive, incredulous minds of ancient people caused god to "exist."

> Gosh, anybody swallowing this crap is about as dumb as they come.

Actually John, anybody *bagging* this "crap" without first understanding
what the fuck it is they're attempting to refute is as dumb as they come;
both for gibbering about that which they know naught AND for doing so
publicly.

>I'll place my bet on God, he gives proof and evidence,
>no magic, and no guesses.

Your god gives NO evidence - how can it? It's an invention.

Anyway, idiot, your whole god-concept relies on magic. Magic that allows
your god-thingumy to exist eternally, uncaused;

magic that allegedly allows him to exist without a single jot of evidence
to suggest he does;

magic that he allegedly used to just "speak" everything into existence;

magic that he allegedly used to convert some recently magicked clay into a
fully developed human;

magic that allowed him to take a recently
transmogrified-from-clay-into-living-flesh rib out of one critter and
magically create another;

magic that allowed him to impregnate a virgin;

magic that allowed his alleged son to transmogrify water into alcohol;

magic that allowed his alledged bastard son to return to life after
cellular death;

magic that allowed him to create 4.4 billion cubic kilometres of water to
cover the earth - and the magic required to make that same water disappear;

magic in providing Noah the means by which to repopulate the entire planet;

magic by which all the animals somehow magically travelled from everywhere
on earth to fill the ark;

magic to allow these animals to survive despite completely impossible
conditions;

magic that makes a burning bush speak;

magic that stops the sun for a day;

magic that makes food rain from the sky - interesting that he doesn't do it
for the starving millions in today's time;

magic that allows a person's sense of I-ness to exist independantly of its
physical means of existence;

magic that allows one to feel pain, hunger and thirst in the fires of hell
without requiring the physical things that cause them;

etc etc et fucking cetera.

Magic, John. The dreams of children.

You're a childish idiot, John. Do you *really* think anyone is taking you
seriously? Do you *really* think your, "god did it," explanation does
anything except assert the *futility* of explanation?

Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

[steve eric cisna]

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> the Grand Clavister wrote:
>
> > >Well, let's just get into it here. Simple question that trashes
> > >evolution for good:
>

> > >WHY DOES A MAN HAVE A BEARD AND WOMEN DON'T????? WHAT WAS THE

> > >EVOLUTIONARY FORCE THAT CAUSED THIS???? WHAT WAS THE EVOLUTIONARY
> > >FORCE THAT DELAY'S MEN HAVING BEARDS UNTILL LATER IN LIFE???

> > >DON'T HUMANS ALWAYS NEED BEARDS??? IF THEY DON'T NEED THEM, WHY DO
> > >MEN GET THEM LATER IN LIFE???
>

> > This is hysterical.
>
> Is it the key stuff again?
>
> > Any doctor can tell you that facial hair results
> > from the propogation of male hormones throughout the body.
>
> Oh, what's this got to do with EVOLUTION???? I said
> show the EVOLUTIONARY FORCE that selects men to get beards
> and women to not. Duh!

Beards basically have disappeared. Testosterone just brings them back. Duh!

>
> > As puberty
> > sets on (or has it in your case?), men start growing facial hair. Women
> > don't because they are full of female hormones. That's why they grow
> > boobies. The hair anywhere on our bodies is there _because_ homo
> > sapiens is still evolving. There is evidence that people are taller
> > than they used to be, with a larger braincase and _less_ hair. But we
> > don't quite look like the aliens from Close Encounters... _yet_.
>
> That's really entertaining, I'm supposed to believe that eyes
> developed special lens structures, dust collectors, tear ducts,
> focusing mussles, iris, shutter, color detectors, brightness
> detectors, optic nerves, ect...... And yet some either extremely
> important BEARD or extremely important NON-BEARD shows up or
> doesn't? Both male and female (even this is absurd, why aren't
> we asexual to begin with) have identical eye structures extremely
> complex, but what forced men to get BEARDS and women not too?
>
> God.

If you consider testosterone to be god, then I might agree with you. But
what does testosterone have to do with the eyes? Beard growth is
basically just a side effect of testosterone.

>
>
> > (THIS is the argument that's supposed to trash evolution? As if
> > Creationism and the word of God has a reasonable explanation for all of
> > the idiosyncracies of the male and female forms? Please explain.)
>
> God made the male and female, differently, such that they would
> become one and have offspring.

Then why do men have nipples?

> I'd bet you don't answer the vacuum
> one either...

>
> > >I won't wait for your answer (like you have any ideas).
>

> > I'm full of ideas. At least my philosophy allows me to _have_ ideas, or
> > to be open to new ones. It's called using your brain for something
> > besides keeping the inside of your skull moist.
>
> You best hurry and find Jesus.

Good rebuttal, John.

>
> > >Hey I'm still waiting for that "10cm volume of vacuum to
> > >generate ANY hydrogen mass" question to get answered.
> > >IT'S ONLY THE BASIS FOR ALL BIG BANG THEORIES, yet it's

> > >ALWAYS left unanswered. In fact, IT'S THE BASIS FOR ALL

> > >EXISTANCE, once you delete God.
>

> > This is part of science, dumbass. We think, and refine, and explore,
> > and attempt to understand. You idiots have been told to obey and
> > believe or else, and you shut your eyes and ears and bent over and are
> > no longer capable of learning anything.
>
> Still no answer. An extremely simple physics problem, the answer
> is fully known, but consistantly denied. NO MATTER SHOWS UP
> IN THE VACUUM. The big bang can't happen without God. Period.

A god or your god?

>
> The absense of physicists giving the answer (which they privately
> admit no mass shows up in the vacuum) and then publicly they deny
> God starts it, is just too embarassing for them. Oh well.

What is this "god"'s name? How do you know it's Yahweh?

>
> > Throughout history, scientists have proposed theories. Some worked, and
> > were kept. Some didn't, and were discarded. It's called logic,
>
> No, in their case it's called ignorance and denial.

The case of creationism, you mean?

>
> > and
> > probably just about everything you wear, eat, drive, read and look at
> > came from decades, if not centuries, of scientific exploration. You
> > want to live like a Quaker? Turn off your fucking computer, 'cause they
> > don't use 'em.
>
> Science is great, but lying when you know the facts is pathetic.
> God deserves to be recognized for creating the universe, especially
> when all evidence points to only he could have done it.

WHAT EVIDENCE?!?!? What evidence do you have that god (and not just any
god, but the god of the bible) did it?

There's
> no evidence of any process where a vacuum creates mass at 0 deg K,
> no external energy input, and 0 Torr vacuum. Why fight it?
>
> > >I won't wait for your answer here either. Let's just get

> > >real and say, PHYSICISTS are basing all existance
> > >on MAGIC CREATED THE UNIVERSE, with NO EVIDENCE to back

> > >up the claims. The simple claim that NOTHING caused
> > >the big bang. Gosh, anybody swallowing this crap is

> > >about as dumb as they come.

> > >I'll place my bet on God, he gives proof and evidence,
> > >no magic, and no guesses.
>

> > I beg your pardon? God gives proof and evidence? Is it just me, or do
> > all those "miracles" not resemble "magic" in its most classic form? Or
> > is it not evil demonic "occultism" because it's God? This is such
> > horseshit. We're talking about a 2,000-year-old-book that has seen
> > numerous rewrites and mistranslations.
>
> Were talking about the God that made you and everyone else.
>
> > How do _you_ explain the 500 offshoots and varieties of Christianity?
> > Who's right? Who's wrong? What about Jews? They believe in God, but
> > they don't believe that Jesus was the Savior! Are _they_ going to rot
> > in Hell, too? What a joke.
>
> Nah, they just like you missed seeing the one who would save them
> from their sins. See how easy it is to miss the obvious? They and
> I guess you too, will either find Jesus before judgement, or will
> have to be some really "good" guy to pass God's standards.
>
> > >By the way, how's mommies keys coming along?
>
> > You're fooling yourself if you think I'm going to feel offended by you
> > bringing up the key issue. I collect them because I like to collect
> > them and because I'm the Grand Clavister. All you're doing is giving me
> > more free publicity. You dumbass.
>
> Thanks, same back.
>
> > >> I'M HARD AT WORK ON 'THE RING OF KEYS': AN APOTHEOSIS FOR YOURS
> > TRULY
>
> How much work could it be?
>
> > >Huh, sounds exciting ...
>
> > Damn straight. Do you even know what the word "apotheosis" means?
>
> I'd know if I whipped out the dictionary, someday if I remember ...

So you admit that you seldom check referenced before you make an ass of
yourself. I see.

Steve

>
>

[John P. Boatwright]

Six wrote:
> >WHY DOES A MAN HAVE A BEARD AND WOMEN DON'T?????

> Hormones, dimwit. Feed a female enough testosterone and she will also grow
> a beard. Feed a man enough oestrogen and not only will he cease to grow a
> beard, he'll also grow tits.

Ah, so you haven't answered yet, what's the beard for ??? And hey,
doesn't a man having tits also improve the child rearing potential,
more food ect... Boy, evolution sure doesn't seem consistant like
evolutionist seem to say it is.

> > WHAT WAS THE
> >EVOLUTIONARY FORCE THAT CAUSED THIS???? WHAT WAS THE EVOLUTIONARY
> >FORCE THAT DELAY'S MEN HAVING BEARDS UNTILL LATER IN LIFE???

> John, do you really think that shouting your absurd questions somehow
> further validates them? Ever hear of puberty/adolescence? Well, actually I
> suspect you're only going through both right now but don't worry, it'll
> make more sense as you reach adulthood.

Again you're not answering why women don't get beards and why men
do. I'm not asking for the cause/effect answer I'm asking for
the DRIVING FORCE that pushes for men to need beards and women not
to need them. That's the whole point of evolution isn't it? Some
driving force. What's the advantage that pushes men to need beards and
women to not need them? From your answer I can only assume evolution
follows no advantage based system, it's all haphazzard and chance.
Doesn't sound like the crap they've been pushing, it sounds worse.

> Anyway, the pituitary gland only kicks in at the start of adolescence. Why
> don't you try researching your silly questions instead of babbling them
> incredulously at people?

Sounds like you're scraping for an answer and want out quickly.
You're just dumping more cause and effect. You might as well
say your clock hands spin around, we all know this. You're stilll
avoiding the detailing of what "advantage based driving force
of evolution" caused man to have a beard and a woman to not.

See, evolution makes NO sense. Evolution didn't set up beards
for men and none for women. God did.

> >DON'T HUMANS ALWAYS NEED BEARDS??? IF THEY DON'T NEED THEM, WHY DO
> >MEN GET THEM LATER IN LIFE???

> SAME REASON A MANS BALLS ONLY BECOME FERTILE AS HIS BODY MATURES!!!!!
> SAME REASON WOMEN DON'T HAVE TITS FROM BIRTH!!!
> HORMONES, BOY, HORMONES.

Well from the big evolution textbook, you'll just pull out
how those hormones were designed by 4.5 billion years of
craft and design (by NOTHING). Apparently NOTHING thought
men needed certain hormones to make beards, why? Why did
evolution then take a turn and drop the beard for women.
You're selectively ignoring the basic premise of evolution,
that evolution changes the absolute design to fit
increased offspring, increased survival rates, ect...
It changed the men/women need for or no need for a beard
but didn't do so consistantly.

From this I don't see evolution even being involved.

> >I won't wait for your answer (like you have any ideas).

> Done. Next!

You must have dropped out, giving up so easy.

> >Hey I'm still waiting for that "10cm volume of vacuum to
> >generate ANY hydrogen mass" question to get answered.
> >IT'S ONLY THE BASIS FOR ALL BIG BANG THEORIES, yet it's
> >ALWAYS left unanswered.

> sigh. MUST you stoop to lies? I've already posted the current understanding
> of the big bang several times. Your stupid non-question has BEEN answered,
> fool. Wake the fuck up.

You've never answered this, NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED IT.

EXAMPLE ANSWERS WOULD BE: After 1 year there would be
1.0 kilo gram of hydrogen in the 10cm volume. (laughter)

The answer is 0.0 kilo grams.

Physicists are absolute liars on this big bang problem,
they've never answered it. I've had 2 supposid top physicists
never write back about this (I'll dump their names to you
if you like, total wimpout). Why? Because the answer sucks,
it proves them to be FOOLS to believe the stuff. Not one
physicist has answered this and it's been daily on the WWW.
It's funny, the whole basis for all big bang theories,
shot to hell...

Just another day, and God wins again.

> > In fact, IT'S THE BASIS FOR ALL EXISTANCE, once you delete God.

> Why delete what's never been there? The god-concept is an outdated
> non-answer invented by primitive people who knew no better. Try reading
> "The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," by
> Julian Jaynes.
> Hint: you'll need to unstrap your bible from your face.

Well apparently you read it, and it didn't do you much good
(or maybe I missed the post where you used the material?).

> >I won't wait for your answer here either.

> Been done. Next!

Ah always the quitter. Won't you answer just one?

> > Let's just get real and say, PHYSICISTS are basing all existance
> >on MAGIC CREATED THE UNIVERSE, with NO EVIDENCE to back
> >up the claims.

> Liar. We have a fine understanding all the way down to 10^-43 seconds, and
> what happened during that final infinitesimally small time will be answered
> when we eventually work out the Grand Unification Theory. It is your
> god-concept that relies on magic, John.

Bull, where'd all the hydrogen come from, eh? It had to build up
from somewhere, and over a period of time. Where's the matter
coming from??? Drop the magic, or you've just given free license
to say God did it (of course he did anyway).

> > The simple claim that NOTHING caused the big bang.

> Just like nothing causes radioactive decay. Just like nothing causes
> quantum fluctuations. Just like nothing causes virtual particles......

God built it all.

> Just like nothing caused your god-thingumy.....well, yes it did. The
> primitive, incredulous minds of ancient people caused god to "exist."

God was there way, way before any of us.

> > Gosh, anybody swallowing this crap is about as dumb as they come.

> Actually John, anybody *bagging* this "crap" without first understanding
> what the fuck it is they're attempting to refute is as dumb as they come;
> both for gibbering about that which they know naught AND for doing so
> publicly.

I've had the physics, I can spot 1e-43 sec SPAM when I see it.
The hydrogen had to build up, then it had to compress due to gravity,
then it heats to 40,000,000 deg K ect.... Note the first part, the
HYDROGEN HAS TO START APPEARING OUT OF NOWHERE, at 0 deg K, no external
energy, no external mass, and 0 Torr.

MAGIC, DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC ... pretty old song.

God's probably laughing at you right now, holding on to NOTHING.
God created it all, case closed. OR:

************************************************************
I'm hereby challenging ALL physicists to defend their honor
and prove hydrogen builds up in a vacuum at 0 Torr, 0 deg K,
no external energy, no external mass, so the BIG BANG can
remain a usable theory in the creation of the universe.

Until such time as self creating mass is proven under the
above conditions, the BIG BANG will be considered "the most
ignorant theory ever imagined by some of the most wacked out
individuals on the planet". QED.
************************************************************

> >I'll place my bet on God, he gives proof and evidence,
> >no magic, and no guesses.

> Your god gives NO evidence - how can it? It's an invention.

Gave piles of evidence, you ignore it all.

> Anyway, idiot, your whole god-concept relies on magic. Magic that allows
> your god-thingumy to exist eternally, uncaused;

See the BIG BANG for the definition of MAGIC induced by guessing.
Gosh and all I'd have to do to get a physics degree is

* Know how to guess
* Know how to type
* Know how to keep from laughing into the microphone

Hmmm... I could do that. I now am John P. Boatwright PHD Physics.

> magic that allegedly allows him to exist without a single jot of evidence
> to suggest he does;

Piles of evidence, http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god for
just a very minor sample, check again as time goes on.

> magic that he allegedly used to just "speak" everything into existence;

It's his job, he does it well.

> magic that he allegedly used to convert some recently magicked clay into a
> fully developed human;

We all come from the piles of stuff (crude statement for sure).

> magic that allowed him to take a recently
> transmogrified-from-clay-into-living-flesh rib out of one critter and
> magically create another;

I can design circuits, obviously God does more impressive things.

> magic that allowed him to impregnate a virgin;

It's happened before, you'd think God could do it if anybody could.

> magic that allowed his alleged son to transmogrify water into alcohol;

Water uses hydrogen and oxygen, alcohol includes carbon in the mix.
There's carbon in carbon dioxide in the air. Not too far off. Besides
God can whip up anything and everything whenever he likes.

> magic that allowed his alledged bastard son to return to life after
> cellular death;

It was part of the plan.

> magic that allowed him to create 4.4 billion cubic kilometres of water to
> cover the earth - and the magic required to make that same water disappear;

It's just hydrogen and oxygen, no big deal to whip up, ask a physicist.

> magic in providing Noah the means by which to repopulate the entire planet;

Simple creation of more men and women.

> magic by which all the animals somehow magically travelled from everywhere
> on earth to fill the ark;

My bet is Noah only saved the local animals, God probably whipped
up new ones when ever.

> magic to allow these animals to survive despite completely impossible
> conditions;

It wouldn't have mattered if they all died, he can make more.

> magic that makes a burning bush speak;

Toss your lamp into the TV tube, similar thing.

> magic that stops the sun for a day;

You assume God has some dated "best used by" power structure.

> magic that makes food rain from the sky - interesting that he doesn't do it
> for the starving millions in today's time;

Most people (as you well know) have forgotten him, why should
he remember them?

> magic that allows a person's sense of I-ness to exist independantly of its
> physical means of existence;

This has been thoroughly documented (unless your not discussing NDE's?).

> magic that allows one to feel pain, hunger and thirst in the fires of hell
> without requiring the physical things that cause them;

Some NDE's have reported this too.

> etc etc et fucking cetera.

> Magic, John. The dreams of children.

Big bang will go down as the worst guess in all science history.

> You're a childish idiot, John. Do you *really* think anyone is taking you
> seriously? Do you *really* think your, "god did it," explanation does
> anything except assert the *futility* of explanation?

All physicists are wimps and won't even answer a well defined
and extremely simple to comprehend physics problem. You didn't
either. If you were a stud, you would have pulled out a quick
little guess maybe a few numbers (1e-43 sec, ha ha ha), couple
of differential equations, and then plowed some theory in.

I would have kicked your ass though, good thing you wimped out.
At least this way those reading can guess you might of had
further potential to score some points. You were right to
ignore the answer for just this reason. My best guess is
that physicists don't respond for exactly the same reason.

Still, pretty funny. Ask Jesus to forgive your sins.

[John P. Boatwright]

steve eric cisna wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > > Any doctor can tell you that facial hair results
> > > from the propogation of male hormones throughout the body.

> > Oh, what's this got to do with EVOLUTION???? I said
> > show the EVOLUTIONARY FORCE that selects men to get beards
> > and women to not. Duh!

> Beards basically have disappeared. Testosterone just brings them back. Duh!

stevey, like you could ever would answer the question. Why don't
you guys just give it up. The form of the answer would look like:

Beards allowed men to perform the hunting act in a more efficient
manner such that more animals were killed during the years 20-30
ect.... ect... ect...
And the women were able eat food best due to the lack of beard
ect... ect... ect...

But guess what, there's NO evolutionary reason at all for men
TO HAVE beards and for women NOT TO HAVE them. DUH! Follow your
evolutionary standard approach of modified design due to improving
conditions (mutations, change for the better). Evolution is just
a sham, beards prove it.

Evolution can't design or re-desing anything. Only God can.
Just one more proof of evolution sinking ...

> Then why do men have nipples?

Just in case.

> What is this "god"'s name? How do you know it's Yahweh?

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

> > Science is great, but lying when you know the facts is pathetic.
> > God deserves to be recognized for creating the universe, especially
> > when all evidence points to only he could have done it.

This refers to the 10cm volume of vacuum that never creates any
hydrogen, 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external energy. Without any hydrogen
ever created, no mass can group together, no intense gravity, no
increasing pressure, no increasing temperature (40,000,000 deg K
needed to make a star), hence no big bang ever happens. Only God
can make a universe. The void of a vacuum never makes a universe.
Any physicist who ever say's different is either guessing or
lying. You can not make such statements with no evidence to
back it up. The statements made thus far by physicists on this matter
are baseless and imply NOTHING as THE creation source. God has
already said HE created the universe and HE gave proof for his
existance. NOTHING has NEVER proven it's ability to create
anything. To believe NOTHING created the universe is shear
stupidity (especially when based on the lack of evidence
provided by physicists, it's absurd!).

> WHAT EVIDENCE?!?!? What evidence do you have that god (and not just any
> god, but the god of the bible) did it?

see http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god the section on proof
of God.

> > > Damn straight. Do you even know what the word "apotheosis" means?

> > I'd know if I whipped out the dictionary, someday if I remember ...

> So you admit that you seldom check referenced before you make an ass of
> yourself. I see.

I don't care what apotheosis means, I know that God's words
are in the bible and that Jesus died for our sins. Jesus by
definition is the Son of God. What Grampa Clabberster or yourself
think of Jesus, is unimportant. Frying hamburgers anyone?

[steve eric cisna]

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> steve eric cisna wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > > Any doctor can tell you that facial hair results
> > > > from the propogation of male hormones throughout the body.
>
> > > Oh, what's this got to do with EVOLUTION???? I said
> > > show the EVOLUTIONARY FORCE that selects men to get beards
> > > and women to not. Duh!
>
> > Beards basically have disappeared. Testosterone just brings them back. Duh!
>

> stevey, like you could ever would answer the question. Why don't
> you guys just give it up. The form of the answer would look like:
>
> Beards allowed men to perform the hunting act in a more efficient
> manner such that more animals were killed during the years 20-30
> ect.... ect... ect...
> And the women were able eat food best due to the lack of beard
> ect... ect... ect...
>
> But guess what, there's NO evolutionary reason at all for men
> TO HAVE beards and for women NOT TO HAVE them.

Testosterone, John. It's basically a drug. Drugs have side effects.
One of the side effects of this particular one is beard growth. That's
why, when you give women testosterone, they grow beards. It's also why
pre-adolescent boys don't have beards. They just haven't started
producing testosterone yet.

You are right, in a way. There really is no evolutionary advantage
behind beards. They're just side effects.

DUH! Follow your
> evolutionary standard approach of modified design due to improving
> conditions (mutations, change for the better). Evolution is just
> a sham, beards prove it.

Right, John. Just keep believing that. You really are smarter than
all the biologists in the past century who disagree with you. And there
really is an old guy in the sky who's going to make sure you have eternal
happiness because you still follow some first-century cult leader. And
the space aliens really did put a probe in your brain that's currently
sending rays back to the Pleiades (I suppose that's why you're wearing
the aluminum foil helmet. I think it's nice that the nurse didn't take
that away from you).

>
> Evolution can't design or re-desing anything. Only God can.
> Just one more proof of evolution sinking ...

There was proof in that sentence? Where?

>
> > Then why do men have nipples?
>

> Just in case.

Sounds to me like your "god" made a mistake.

>
> > What is this "god"'s name? How do you know it's Yahweh?
>

> The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

How do you know he's the right one? Maybe it was Shiva or the IPU. Even
if you manage to prove that a god created everything (which you will
never do, especially at this rate) you've still got to prove which one it
was.

>
> > > Science is great, but lying when you know the facts is pathetic.
> > > God deserves to be recognized for creating the universe, especially
> > > when all evidence points to only he could have done it.
>

> This refers to the 10cm volume of vacuum that never creates any
> hydrogen, 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external energy. Without any hydrogen
> ever created, no mass can group together, no intense gravity, no
> increasing pressure, no increasing temperature (40,000,000 deg K
> needed to make a star), hence no big bang ever happens. Only God
> can make a universe. The void of a vacuum never makes a universe.
> Any physicist who ever say's different is either guessing or
> lying. You can not make such statements with no evidence to
> back it up. The statements made thus far by physicists on this matter
> are baseless and imply NOTHING as THE creation source. God has
> already said HE created the universe and HE gave proof for his
> existance. NOTHING has NEVER proven it's ability to create
> anything. To believe NOTHING created the universe is shear
> stupidity (especially when based on the lack of evidence
> provided by physicists, it's absurd!).

How much information have you actually read on the big bang theory?
Anything by Steven Hawking? Did you actually try to understand it?

>
> > WHAT EVIDENCE?!?!? What evidence do you have that god (and not just any
> > god, but the god of the bible) did it?
>

> see http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god the section on proof
> of God.

The pictures in the clouds? I've already seen those. Once, I saw Elvis
in the clouds. I guess he's come back from the dead! I also saw a face
on the surface of Mars. I guess that means prehistoric people have
colonized Mars and started building stuff there. After all, nothing ever
happens for no reason, and people never just see what they want to see.

>
> > > > Damn straight. Do you even know what the word "apotheosis" means?
>
> > > I'd know if I whipped out the dictionary, someday if I remember ...
>
> > So you admit that you seldom check referenced before you make an ass of
> > yourself. I see.
>

> I don't care what apotheosis means, I know that God's words
> are in the bible and that Jesus died for our sins. Jesus by
> definition is the Son of God. What Grampa Clabberster or yourself
> think of Jesus, is unimportant. Frying hamburgers anyone?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You really do have Tourrette's syndrome, don't you? Why else is there the
sudden increase in random shouting?

Steve

>
>

[steve eric cisna]

On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>

> > > steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:
>
> > > > Beards basically have disappeared. Testosterone just brings them back. Duh!
>
> > > stevey, like you could ever would answer the question. Why don't
> > > you guys just give it up. The form of the answer would look like:
>
> > > Beards allowed men to perform the hunting act in a more efficient
> > > manner such that more animals were killed during the years 20-30
> > > ect.... ect... ect...
> > > And the women were able eat food best due to the lack of beard
> > > ect... ect... ect...
>
> > > But guess what, there's NO evolutionary reason at all for men
> > > TO HAVE beards and for women NOT TO HAVE them.
>
> > Testosterone, John. It's basically a drug. Drugs have side effects.
> > One of the side effects of this particular one is beard growth. That's
> > why, when you give women testosterone, they grow beards. It's also why
> > pre-adolescent boys don't have beards. They just haven't started
> > producing testosterone yet.
>
> > You are right, in a way. There really is no evolutionary advantage
> > behind beards. They're just side effects.
>

> Ya, and "evolution" if it ever could design anything wouldn't have
> required beards on men and NOT beards on women.

You know what really pisses me off? Boatwright! I keep trying to stop
replying to his nonsense, but it's impossible. I can't just leave him to
his idiocy. I keep trying to talk some sense into him. It's like
chewing on a hangnail. I'd say that it's about as productive as well.

Anyway, back to the point. John, evolution DOESN'T require men to have
beards! Beards are not a requirement, in men or women. They're just a
side effect of testosterone. Women don't have testosterone, so they
don't have beards! How hard is that to understand? (then again, look at
who I'm talking to!)

>
> > > DUH! Follow your
> > > evolutionary standard approach of modified design due to improving
> > > conditions (mutations, change for the better). Evolution is just
> > > a sham, beards prove it.
>
> > Right, John. Just keep believing that. You really are smarter than
> > all the biologists in the past century who disagree with you.
>

> Oh stop it, you're embarassing me ...

Yes, I know. But if you want, you can drop your little "evolution" is
false idea. Then you won't have to look like an idiot in front of
everyone else anymore, and the embarrassment will disappear!

>
> > And there
> > really is an old guy in the sky who's going to make sure you have eternal
> > happiness because you still follow some first-century cult leader.
>

> Granted God has been around forever, and will remain forever.

As I said, John, if it makes you happy to think that, just go on and
think it.

>
> > And
> > the space aliens really did put a probe in your brain that's currently
> > sending rays back to the Pleiades (I suppose that's why you're wearing
> > the aluminum foil helmet.
>

> This coming from a guy who rejected the bible after 1/2 year of
> part time reading???

It only took me a half year to read. I realize that it may be harder for
you, sounding out the big words and all, but I'm sure the nice nurse will
help you out.

> Foolish (er, I mean foilish).

John, I must say that this is the best joke I've ever heard you make.
You should be proud of this one. Print it out and hang it on your wall.
Then, you can show it to your grandchildren and proudly say, "Look, this
is where my intelligence peaked!"

>
> > I think it's nice that the nurse didn't take
> > that away from you).
>

> Stevey, you're the first person to mention aliens and
> aluminum foil helmets. Obviously you listen to Art Bell?

Nope. Why?

> Oh ya, you bought some gismo and want to resell it?

So by saying that you are a mental patient who believes in aliens and
jesus, I am trying to sell an aluminum foil helmet? I see.

Lousy hangnail.

> No thanks. Foil helmets ... you are a twit.

>
> > > Evolution can't design or re-desing anything. Only God can.
> > > Just one more proof of evolution sinking ...
>
> > There was proof in that sentence? Where?
>

> Ya, beards. Evolution didn't follow a consistant
> EVOLUTIONARY FORCE strategy for men and women.

LISTEN TO ME!!! I AM CAPITALIZING SO I CAN GET THROUGH TO YOUR
FUNDAMENTALIST MIND!!!! EVOLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE BEARDS!!!! NOTHING,
OTHER THAN TESTOSTERONE (and a few other chemicals) CAUSES BEARDS!!!
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO BE THERE, THEY'RE JUST THERE!!!

>
> Either:
>
> 1. Both men and women need a beard
> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard
>
> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.

No, John, as I've been saying all along, number 2 is correct. The idea
that beards are not necessary is the point I was making all along!
Listen when people try to teach you something!

>
> > > > Then why do men have nipples?
>
> > > Just in case.
>
> > Sounds to me like your "god" made a mistake.
>

> We already covered this,

When?

> you are getting boring.

I know, John. It is boring listening to someone try to explain something
to you when you don't actually want to learn anything. So just ask the
nice nurse to bring you your bible so you can ignore the world some more.

It's simple
> decoration, God is the designer, who cares.

>
> > > > What is this "god"'s name? How do you know it's Yahweh?
>
> > > The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
>
> > How do you know he's the right one? Maybe it was Shiva or the IPU. Even
> > if you manage to prove that a god created everything (which you will
> > never do, especially at this rate) you've still got to prove which one it
> > was.
>

> Show your proof of Shiva or the IPU...
>
> What, you don't have any proof? Nothing to show? Nothing for me
> to check out? Hmmm... worthless responses, why do you post?

Exactly my point, John. You have no proof of Yahweh, other than pictures
in the clouds ("Look, there's Elvis! Shoulda known he'd come back as a
cumulonimbus!"). Why do you bother to post, if you have no proof? Then
again, why do you bother to breathe, if you have no purpose except to be
happy after you die?

>
> > > > > Science is great, but lying when you know the facts is pathetic.
> > > > > God deserves to be recognized for creating the universe, especially
> > > > > when all evidence points to only he could have done it.
>
> > > This refers to the 10cm volume of vacuum that never creates any
> > > hydrogen, 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external energy. Without any hydrogen
> > > ever created, no mass can group together, no intense gravity, no
> > > increasing pressure, no increasing temperature (40,000,000 deg K
> > > needed to make a star), hence no big bang ever happens. Only God
> > > can make a universe. The void of a vacuum never makes a universe.
> > > Any physicist who ever say's different is either guessing or
> > > lying. You can not make such statements with no evidence to
> > > back it up. The statements made thus far by physicists on this matter
> > > are baseless and imply NOTHING as THE creation source. God has
> > > already said HE created the universe and HE gave proof for his
> > > existance. NOTHING has NEVER proven it's ability to create
> > > anything. To believe NOTHING created the universe is shear
> > > stupidity (especially when based on the lack of evidence
> > > provided by physicists, it's absurd!).
>
> > How much information have you actually read on the big bang theory?
> > Anything by Steven Hawking? Did you actually try to understand it?
>

> Oh my gosh, he said "STEVEN HAWKING" I best hide now and never
> ever, ever, ever, ever, post again...

Well, it would be best, but since when have christians ever cared about
doing what was best?

>I can't think now,

Yes, we know, John.

what
> will I do????

Did you read any of his books?

>
> Oh has SH ever answered the basic questions?

I guess not.

>
> * WHERE DOES THE ORIGINAL MATTER BUILD UP?
> * I'D LIKE SOME PROOF.
>
> You forget, Mr. SH has not exactly shown what I'd consider
> to be "prime" evidence.

Did you read any of his books? If not, how would you know what proof
he's offered?

I want PROOF that matter builds up
> in a vacumm, not guesses.

I want PROOF that some Hebrew desert god created everything in 6 days.
No creationist has ever even attempted to provide it. All they ever do
is try to poke holes in the theories that are already there. But they'll
never try to prove their own theory.

Here, I'll show you how stupid
> it sounds.
>
> From nothing in a vacuum at 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external
> energy, matter just explodes into existance and then burns
> at 40,000,000 degree K. All space and time, physical
> laws ect... just poof there they are ... Then we all show up
> at Dairy Queen before it vanishes again.
>
> Now, because I just guessed-it-into-being-reality, YOU will
> now have to believe me, or I'll just write another book 2 years
> later and change all the guesses until you fall for it.
> - Steven Hawking Boatwright PHD physicist, and how about those
> milk chocolate covered cones!

It's better than, "Because I read it in a book, it must be true!"

I don't know that Hawking's right. I don't even really care. All I know
is that you, and all your creationist ilk, have never even *tried* to
prove your nonsense. All it is is just another ancient myth, out of
thousands of primitive, ancient myths. At least Hawking's trying. Do
you really think you're smarter than he is? You do, don't you? You
know, John, delusions of grandeur are one of the surest signs of schizophrenia.

>
> Only a true twit would believe this crap or anyone who pushes it.
>
> God said specifically that he did it.

I love this. Every scientist in the world is wrong, but because you heard
that some guy (that you don't even know exists) said he did it, it must be
true! Great christian logic!

NOTHING has NEVER said it
> did this. Mr Hawking is wrong

How do you know, John? It's as simple as that. Just prove that your
particular old guy in the sky created everything, and I will convert to
christianity and become a televangelist. A couple of stipulatons: "I read
it in a book" is not proof. Neither is: "Look at these clouds! See how
if you sort of squint your eyes at that part by the arrow, you can kind
of make out a face? Well, that face is quite obviously the face of jeezus!"

and probably knows it (if he doesn't,
> oh my gosh how'd he ever convince all those people to listen to
> him....)

>
> > > > WHAT EVIDENCE?!?!? What evidence do you have that god (and not just any
> > > > god, but the god of the bible) did it?
>
> > > see http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god the section on proof
> > > of God.
>
> > The pictures in the clouds? I've already seen those. Once, I saw Elvis
> > in the clouds. I guess he's come back from the dead! I also saw a face
> > on the surface of Mars. I guess that means prehistoric people have
> > colonized Mars and started building stuff there. After all, nothing ever
> > happens for no reason, and people never just see what they want to see.
>

> Hmm... Well I saw a bunch of phosphors that resembled Clinton,
> actually they seemed to give the appearance of motion. Funny how
> they could do that. From what you say, I should just ignore any
> phosphors in the future that appear to represent anything. For
> instance the phosphors in front of me right now under the glass
> in the monitor....

Did I say that? What I said was that your pictures in the clouds mean
nothing.

>
> You see, even when God presents evidence, you blindly ignore it.
> Typical fact rejecting atheist, you deserve what you'll get.

That's good, John. We'll all pay in the end. Just wait and see! Then
we'll be sorry! Then nobody will laugh at you! Then we'll all realize
that you were right all along!

Just keep believing that, John.

Steve

>
>

[John P. Boatwright]

steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:

> > > Beards basically have disappeared. Testosterone just brings them back. Duh!

> > stevey, like you could ever would answer the question. Why don't
> > you guys just give it up. The form of the answer would look like:

> > Beards allowed men to perform the hunting act in a more efficient
> > manner such that more animals were killed during the years 20-30
> > ect.... ect... ect...
> > And the women were able eat food best due to the lack of beard
> > ect... ect... ect...

> > But guess what, there's NO evolutionary reason at all for men
> > TO HAVE beards and for women NOT TO HAVE them.

> Testosterone, John. It's basically a drug. Drugs have side effects.
> One of the side effects of this particular one is beard growth. That's
> why, when you give women testosterone, they grow beards. It's also why
> pre-adolescent boys don't have beards. They just haven't started
> producing testosterone yet.

> You are right, in a way. There really is no evolutionary advantage
> behind beards. They're just side effects.

Ya, and "evolution" if it ever could design anything wouldn't have

required beards on men and NOT beards on women.

> > DUH! Follow your
> > evolutionary standard approach of modified design due to improving
> > conditions (mutations, change for the better). Evolution is just
> > a sham, beards prove it.

> Right, John. Just keep believing that. You really are smarter than
> all the biologists in the past century who disagree with you.

Oh stop it, you're embarassing me ...

> And there

> really is an old guy in the sky who's going to make sure you have eternal
> happiness because you still follow some first-century cult leader.

Granted God has been around forever, and will remain forever.

> And

> the space aliens really did put a probe in your brain that's currently
> sending rays back to the Pleiades (I suppose that's why you're wearing
> the aluminum foil helmet.

This coming from a guy who rejected the bible after 1/2 year of
part time reading??? Foolish (er, I mean foilish).

> I think it's nice that the nurse didn't take
> that away from you).

Stevey, you're the first person to mention aliens and

aluminum foil helmets. Obviously you listen to Art Bell?

Oh ya, you bought some gismo and want to resell it?

No thanks. Foil helmets ... you are a twit.

> > Evolution can't design or re-desing anything. Only God can.

> > Just one more proof of evolution sinking ...

> There was proof in that sentence? Where?

Ya, beards. Evolution didn't follow a consistant

EVOLUTIONARY FORCE strategy for men and women.

Either:

1. Both men and women need a beard
2. Both men and women don't need a beard

Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.

> > > Then why do men have nipples?

> > Just in case.

> Sounds to me like your "god" made a mistake.

We already covered this, you are getting boring. It's simple

decoration, God is the designer, who cares.

> > > What is this "god"'s name? How do you know it's Yahweh?

> > The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

> How do you know he's the right one? Maybe it was Shiva or the IPU. Even
> if you manage to prove that a god created everything (which you will
> never do, especially at this rate) you've still got to prove which one it
> was.

Show your proof of Shiva or the IPU...

What, you don't have any proof? Nothing to show? Nothing for me
to check out? Hmmm... worthless responses, why do you post?

> > > > Science is great, but lying when you know the facts is pathetic.

> > > > God deserves to be recognized for creating the universe, especially
> > > > when all evidence points to only he could have done it.

> > This refers to the 10cm volume of vacuum that never creates any
> > hydrogen, 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external energy. Without any hydrogen
> > ever created, no mass can group together, no intense gravity, no
> > increasing pressure, no increasing temperature (40,000,000 deg K
> > needed to make a star), hence no big bang ever happens. Only God
> > can make a universe. The void of a vacuum never makes a universe.
> > Any physicist who ever say's different is either guessing or
> > lying. You can not make such statements with no evidence to
> > back it up. The statements made thus far by physicists on this matter
> > are baseless and imply NOTHING as THE creation source. God has
> > already said HE created the universe and HE gave proof for his
> > existance. NOTHING has NEVER proven it's ability to create
> > anything. To believe NOTHING created the universe is shear
> > stupidity (especially when based on the lack of evidence
> > provided by physicists, it's absurd!).

> How much information have you actually read on the big bang theory?
> Anything by Steven Hawking? Did you actually try to understand it?

Oh my gosh, he said "STEVEN HAWKING" I best hide now and never
ever, ever, ever, ever, post again... I can't think now, what
will I do????

Oh has SH ever answered the basic questions?

* WHERE DOES THE ORIGINAL MATTER BUILD UP?

* I'D LIKE SOME PROOF.

You forget, Mr. SH has not exactly shown what I'd consider

to be "prime" evidence. I want PROOF that matter builds up
in a vacumm, not guesses. Here, I'll show you how stupid
it sounds.

From nothing in a vacuum at 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external
energy, matter just explodes into existance and then burns
at 40,000,000 degree K. All space and time, physical
laws ect... just poof there they are ... Then we all show up
at Dairy Queen before it vanishes again.

Now, because I just guessed-it-into-being-reality, YOU will
now have to believe me, or I'll just write another book 2 years
later and change all the guesses until you fall for it.
- Steven Hawking Boatwright PHD physicist, and how about those
milk chocolate covered cones!

Only a true twit would believe this crap or anyone who pushes it.

God said specifically that he did it. NOTHING has NEVER said it
did this. Mr Hawking is wrong and probably knows it (if he doesn't,

oh my gosh how'd he ever convince all those people to listen to
him....)

> > > WHAT EVIDENCE?!?!? What evidence do you have that god (and not just any

> > > god, but the god of the bible) did it?

> > see http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god the section on proof
> > of God.

> The pictures in the clouds? I've already seen those. Once, I saw Elvis
> in the clouds. I guess he's come back from the dead! I also saw a face
> on the surface of Mars. I guess that means prehistoric people have
> colonized Mars and started building stuff there. After all, nothing ever
> happens for no reason, and people never just see what they want to see.

Hmm... Well I saw a bunch of phosphors that resembled Clinton,

actually they seemed to give the appearance of motion. Funny how
they could do that. From what you say, I should just ignore any
phosphors in the future that appear to represent anything. For
instance the phosphors in front of me right now under the glass
in the monitor....

You see, even when God presents evidence, you blindly ignore it.

[John McDonnell]

John P. Boatwright <sa...@mail.teleport.com> wrote in article
<330DF7...@mail.teleport.com>...

> > > This refers to the 10cm volume of vacuum that never creates any
> > > hydrogen, 0 Torr, 0 deg K, no external energy. Without any hydrogen
> > > ever created, no mass can group together, no intense gravity, no
> > > increasing pressure, no increasing temperature (40,000,000 deg K
> > > needed to make a star), hence no big bang ever happens. Only God
> > > can make a universe. The void of a vacuum never makes a universe.
> > > Any physicist who ever say's different is either guessing or
> > > lying. You can not make such statements with no evidence to
> > > back it up. The statements made thus far by physicists on this matter
> > > are baseless and imply NOTHING as THE creation source. God has
> > > already said HE created the universe and HE gave proof for his
> > > existance. NOTHING has NEVER proven it's ability to create
> > > anything. To believe NOTHING created the universe is shear
> > > stupidity (especially when based on the lack of evidence
> > > provided by physicists, it's absurd!).
>

I'll address this point, though I guess it's futile.

1. What makes you believe that universe formed from a vacuum? This is not a
pre-requisite of any current theory of the origins of the universe.

2. Noone knows what caused the universe to actually begin it's expansion.
Not even you. I will grant that it may of been your Christian God. It may
have been Allah, the Great Snail, the Invisible Purple Unicorn or something
else entirely. Quoting the bible does not make it so.

3. Current laws of physics, and current _theories_ of physics cannot cope
with distances shorter than the Planck length (10^-33 cm). String theories
may help in the future. If the universe sprang into being from a
'dimensionless point', then we cannot currently describe the state of the
universe until it was at least as large as the Planck length (i.e. if we
assume that the universe expanded at light speed, after approx 10^-43
seconds.

4. Science is at least honest enough to say 'I don't know'. Certainty about
the origins of the universe is absurd. I repeat, nobody knows.

Lastly a question or two for you.

God is male? Discuss.

'He gave proof ' - please provide the proof. I would prefer that you did
not quote your bible at me. I promise to share the Nobel prize for Physics
with you.

'The void of a vacuum never makes a universe' . How large was the
statistical sample for this observation?

'You can not make such statements with no evidence to back it up'. Why does
this statement apply to physicists, and not to yourself?

Thank you in advance,

Regards,

John.

[Michael R. James]

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970220...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>, steve eric cisna wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>>
>> > > But guess what, there's NO evolutionary reason at all for men
>> > > TO HAVE beards and for women NOT TO HAVE them.
>>
>> > Testosterone, John. It's basically a drug. Drugs have side effects.
>> > One of the side effects of this particular one is beard growth. That's
>> > why, when you give women testosterone, they grow beards. It's also why
>> > pre-adolescent boys don't have beards. They just haven't started
>> > producing testosterone yet.
>>
>> > You are right, in a way. There really is no evolutionary advantage
>> > behind beards. They're just side effects.

[...]

>
>Anyway, back to the point. John, evolution DOESN'T require men to have
>beards! Beards are not a requirement, in men or women. They're just a
>side effect of testosterone. Women don't have testosterone, so they
>don't have beards! How hard is that to understand? (then again, look at
>who I'm talking to!)

This doesn't really answer the question, it only pushes it back one
level.

[massive del]

>>
>> Either:
>>
>> 1. Both men and women need a beard
>> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard
>>
>> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.

Facial hair is a good question for evolution, but not in the way
john sees it. Before we explore it, let's ask a couple of
related questions:
1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?
2) Why do women have large breasts?
The answer in both cases is that the features in question serve to
turn the head of the opposite sex. Significantly enough, in fact, that
the any disadvantage of these features is compensated by sexual selection.

Now facial hair (IIRC) varies considerably around the globe, but is quite
prominent in most people of European descent. So prominent, that if
left unchecked, hair above the lip can grow long enough to obstruct
the mouth. How can such a feature be allowed to persist ( from
an evolutionary perspective)? Hmm....

Simply saying "testosterone did it" is only a very small part of
the story and likely an insufficient explantation.

Mike

[steve eric cisna]

On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970220...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>, steve eric cisna wrote:
> >
> >

> >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > > But guess what, there's NO evolutionary reason at all for men
> >> > > TO HAVE beards and for women NOT TO HAVE them.
> >>
> >> > Testosterone, John. It's basically a drug. Drugs have side effects.
> >> > One of the side effects of this particular one is beard growth. That's
> >> > why, when you give women testosterone, they grow beards. It's also why
> >> > pre-adolescent boys don't have beards. They just haven't started
> >> > producing testosterone yet.
> >>
> >> > You are right, in a way. There really is no evolutionary advantage
> >> > behind beards. They're just side effects.

> [...]

> >
> >Anyway, back to the point. John, evolution DOESN'T require men to have
> >beards! Beards are not a requirement, in men or women. They're just a
> >side effect of testosterone. Women don't have testosterone, so they
> >don't have beards! How hard is that to understand? (then again, look at
> >who I'm talking to!)
>

> This doesn't really answer the question, it only pushes it back one
> level.
>
> [massive del]
> >>

> >> Either:
> >>
> >> 1. Both men and women need a beard
> >> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard
> >>
> >> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.
>

> Facial hair is a good question for evolution, but not in the way
> john sees it. Before we explore it, let's ask a couple of
> related questions:
> 1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?
> 2) Why do women have large breasts?
> The answer in both cases is that the features in question serve to
> turn the head of the opposite sex. Significantly enough, in fact, that
> the any disadvantage of these features is compensated by sexual selection.
>
> Now facial hair (IIRC) varies considerably around the globe, but is quite
> prominent in most people of European descent. So prominent, that if
> left unchecked, hair above the lip can grow long enough to obstruct
> the mouth. How can such a feature be allowed to persist ( from
> an evolutionary perspective)? Hmm....

Which is my point exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And do
mustaches really obstruct the mouth enough to worry about?

>
> Simply saying "testosterone did it" is only a very small part of
> the story and likely an insufficient explantation.

It's better than saying "God made it that way." If you give a woman
enough testosterone, she will grow a beard. So whether it's the whole
answer or not, it is at least indirectly responsible.

Steve

>
> Mike
>
>

[steve eric cisna]

On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> steve EX CLINTON wrote:
> >
> > On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:
> >

> > > Steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:
>
> Hey stevey, I'm still waiting for the 100 lbs of gold? What's
> the deal?

> Only 3 guys left on alt.atheistm?

What?

No spendable cash?
> Typical.

Typical of college students. Do you know how much 100 pounds of gold
costs? If I were to give it to you now, I'd have to ask you for twice as
much, plus a sizable amount of interest, when I won.

>
> > > >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > >> Either:
>
> > > >> 1. Both men and women need a beard
> > > >> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard
>
> > > >> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.
>

> > > Facial hair is a good question for evolution, but not in the way
> > > john sees it. Before we explore it, let's ask a couple of
> > > related questions:
>
> > > 1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?
>

> Because it drives evolutionist mad trying to figure a
> good reason for them to have such an appearance and
> no usable function for improved survival.

Attracting mates.

>
> > > 2) Why do women have large breasts?
>

> Are you complaining?

>
> > > The answer in both cases is that the features in question serve to
> > > turn the head of the opposite sex. Significantly enough, in fact, that
> > > the any disadvantage of these features is compensated by sexual selection.
>

> Balloona, so why don't men have $100 bills attached to their
> foreheads???

You're an idiot. You know nothing, so you resort to making "jokes" which
are never funny and 2/3 of the time, don't even make sense. Just go back
outside and stare at the clouds some more and leave the sensible debates
to us human beings. Who knows, maybe if you stare at the clouds long
enough, you might see Elvis!

> You have some theory as to why women stand on the street corners
> looking for males with $100 bills, and yet they use all sorts
> of birth control and abortion.

Probably so they won't get pregnant, John. It pays to stay awake during
those movies they showed in high school.

> Evolution continues to fail.

At least according to those who know nothing about it.

>
> Why do women put padding in their shoulders and wear spiked shoes?
> If women really need this stuff, then why hasn't evolution
> already taken care of the need??? Evolution fails again...

John, I'm pretty sure this will be my last post to you. Your
intelligence is actually lessening as the days go by. Women *don't* need
shoulder pads or high heels! It has nothing to do with evolution, John!

>
> Why do gays date gays? Why do lesbians date lesbians?

Because they want to.

> Evolution fails again.

How so? The population is pretty stable, and since human beings are
fertile all year round, sex doesn't just have to be for procreation.

>
> Why do men join wars in progress?

Religion, mostly.

> Evolution fails again.

Defending territory is actually supported by evolution. What makes you
think wars defeat evolution?

>
> Evolution makes no sense for the above stuff, especially the
> gay and lesbian parts. Evolution really messes up here doesn't
> it ... Of course evolution never made sense anyway.

What are you talking about? How has anything you said disproved evolution?

>
> Oh ya, and my Pioneer stereo just evolved (uh, duh, that's it).

Yeah, and two of my Walkmans gave birth to another (duh, like human
reproduction really happens).

>
> > > Now facial hair (IIRC) varies considerably around the globe, but is quite
> > > prominent in most people of European descent. So prominent, that if
> > > left unchecked, hair above the lip can grow long enough to obstruct
> > > the mouth. How can such a feature be allowed to persist ( from
> > > an evolutionary perspective)? Hmm....
>

> Yes, and whats USEFULL to men MUST be NEEDED by women. Beards
> just destroy evolution.

I'm going to say this one last time, John,

<deep breath>

BEARDS ARE NOT USEFUL!!!! THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE!!!! THEY ARE JUST SIDE
EFFECTS OF TESTOSTERONE!!!! THERE'S NOT A MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD ALIVE
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NEEDS A BEARD!!!! BEARDS NEITHER PROVE NOR
DISPROVE ANYTHING!!!!

>
> > Which is my point exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And do
> > mustaches really obstruct the mouth enough to worry about?
>

> From the "evolution designed everything" standpoint, there's ZIP
> reason for beards or mustaches. Yet men got them designed in
> by Mr. Evolution. Ya right.

When did I say that evolution designed everything? As I've been saying
since you first posted your insane message, beards are not designed by
evolution. They're just there. There's no reason for them to be there,
they just are. Evolution didn't design them, nor did god.

>
> God did it, it's been known for thousands of years.

Wait a second, even if you managed to disprove evolution (which you will
never do), how do you know that the god of the bible made everything? It
seems I already asked this question. Did you delete it? If so, why?

But the
> prideful still reject God.

Only the stupid reject evolution.

>
> > > Simply saying "testosterone did it" is only a very small part of
> > > the story and likely an insufficient explantation.
>

> Exactly, since they say evolution would design only what's needed
> for the most optimal survivability of the species.

Nobody ever said that, John!!! Listen!

Apparently
> evolution hasn't been informed of it's vast errors

Give me some.

(beards aren't
> needed and aren't consistantly applied).

They aren't needed, you're right. Did anyone say they were?

>
> > It's better than saying "God made it that way." If you give a woman
> > enough testosterone, she will grow a beard. So whether it's the whole
> > answer or not, it is at least indirectly responsible.
>

> Duh! You're tweeking the design. What do you expect? Sure you
> can graft a mans organ onto a woman, but then what?
> Is this proof of evolution? How would modifying a woman
> prove or support evolution in any way?

Listen, numbskull! I don't expect beards to prove evolution. You
shouldn't expect beards to disprove evolution. The fact that women grow
beards if they are given testosterone is direct support for what I was
claiming all along, that TESTOSTERONE CAUSES BEARDS! It is not evolution
that causes them, or creation, they're just side effects!

>
> Giving male hormones to a woman is just toying with God's
> design. It doesn't prove anything.

Beards don't disprove anything.

>
> Evolution theory says that creatures evolve for best survivability
> of the species. Beards do NOTHING to improve survivability,

Or hurt it, for that matter.

> yet men have them and women don't.

Women don't have testosterone, either.

> Proof that evolution is a crock.

How so?

>

John, from this point up until the world ends (2017, right, John?), I am
never again answering one of your posts, which are nothing more than
delightful examples of the thought processes (though I hesitate to use
the word "thought") of fundamentalist christians. You blatantly ignore
everything anyone else says, and when backed into a corner, resort to
childish insults. You are absolutely convinced that you are right and
everyone else is wrong, and that you are smarter than every biologist and
astrophysicist in the world combined. When someone proves you wrong,
you seem to think that they are really proving you right. You are the
single most childish person I have ever seen. What is wrong with you?
You seem to love nothing more than getting people angry. Well, I'm not
going to give you the satisfaction anymore. Until you grow up, you
won't get any more responses from me.

> So when do I get that 100 lbs of gold stevey?

It was originally one ounce. You'll get it when Clinton gets inaugurated
for his third term in office.

Steve

>
>

[steve eric cisna]

On 1 Mar 1997, D.J. Waletzky wrote:

>
> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.97022...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>...

> >
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > > steve EX CLINTON wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:
> > > > > >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>

> <Lots of midless crap followed by>
>
> > > Evolution continues to fail.
>
> <Lots of midless crap followed by>
>
> > > Evolution fails again.
>
> <Lots of midless crap followed by>

>
> > > Proof that evolution is a crock.
>

> I think creationists are avoiding evolution on purpose, since they seem to
> be devolving.

To devolve would require that they have evolved (at least mentally) in
the first place. Most of the ones I have heard from seem stuck just
above the unicellular level. I am unsure how they acquired the form of a
human being, as well as the ability to type, but clearly, they are no
match mentally for a more highly evolved species, such as a starfish or
sea cucumber.

Just one more thing for science to discover, I suppose!

Steve

> --
> <<<_______________________________________
> w a l e t z k y @ v o y a g e r . b x s c i e n c e . e d u
> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> ``>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[John P. Boatwright]

steve EX CLINTON wrote:
>
> On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:
>
> > Steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:

Hey stevey, I'm still waiting for the 100 lbs of gold? What's

the deal? Only 3 guys left on alt.atheistm? No spendable cash?
Typical.

> > >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > >> Either:

> > >> 1. Both men and women need a beard
> > >> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard

> > >> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.

> > Facial hair is a good question for evolution, but not in the way

> > john sees it. Before we explore it, let's ask a couple of
> > related questions:

> > 1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?

Because it drives evolutionist mad trying to figure a
good reason for them to have such an appearance and
no usable function for improved survival.

> > 2) Why do women have large breasts?

Are you complaining?

> > The answer in both cases is that the features in question serve to
> > turn the head of the opposite sex. Significantly enough, in fact, that
> > the any disadvantage of these features is compensated by sexual selection.

Balloona, so why don't men have $100 bills attached to their
foreheads???

You have some theory as to why women stand on the street corners
looking for males with $100 bills, and yet they use all sorts

of birth control and abortion. Evolution continues to fail.

Why do women put padding in their shoulders and wear spiked shoes?
If women really need this stuff, then why hasn't evolution
already taken care of the need??? Evolution fails again...

Why do gays date gays? Why do lesbians date lesbians?
Evolution fails again.

Why do men join wars in progress? Evolution fails again.

Evolution makes no sense for the above stuff, especially the
gay and lesbian parts. Evolution really messes up here doesn't
it ... Of course evolution never made sense anyway.

Oh ya, and my Pioneer stereo just evolved (uh, duh, that's it).

> > Now facial hair (IIRC) varies considerably around the globe, but is quite

> > prominent in most people of European descent. So prominent, that if
> > left unchecked, hair above the lip can grow long enough to obstruct
> > the mouth. How can such a feature be allowed to persist ( from
> > an evolutionary perspective)? Hmm....

Yes, and whats USEFULL to men MUST be NEEDED by women. Beards
just destroy evolution.

> Which is my point exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And do
> mustaches really obstruct the mouth enough to worry about?

From the "evolution designed everything" standpoint, there's ZIP
reason for beards or mustaches. Yet men got them designed in
by Mr. Evolution. Ya right.

God did it, it's been known for thousands of years. But the
prideful still reject God.

> > Simply saying "testosterone did it" is only a very small part of

> > the story and likely an insufficient explantation.

Exactly, since they say evolution would design only what's needed

for the most optimal survivability of the species. Apparently
evolution hasn't been informed of it's vast errors (beards aren't

needed and aren't consistantly applied).

> It's better than saying "God made it that way." If you give a woman
> enough testosterone, she will grow a beard. So whether it's the whole
> answer or not, it is at least indirectly responsible.

Duh! You're tweeking the design. What do you expect? Sure you
can graft a mans organ onto a woman, but then what?
Is this proof of evolution? How would modifying a woman
prove or support evolution in any way?

Giving male hormones to a woman is just toying with God's

design. It doesn't prove anything.

Evolution theory says that creatures evolve for best survivability
of the species. Beards do NOTHING to improve survivability,

yet men have them and women don't. Proof that evolution is a crock.

[D.J. Waletzky]

steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.97022...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>...
>
>

> On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > steve EX CLINTON wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:
> > > > >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

<Lots of midless crap followed by>

> > Evolution continues to fail.

<Lots of midless crap followed by>

> > Evolution fails again.

<Lots of midless crap followed by>

> > Proof that evolution is a crock.

I think creationists are avoiding evolution on purpose, since they seem to
be devolving.

[John P. Boatwright]

steve won't reply again wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > steve EX CLINTON wrote:

> > > On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:

> > > > Steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:

> > Hey stevey, I'm still waiting for the 100 lbs of gold? What's
> > the deal?

> > Only 3 guys left on alt.atheistm?

> What?

You said you'd get that mass of "put up or shut ups" to
donate to your cause. What you need is the red phone
to the Ohair estate...

> > No spendable cash? Typical.

> Typical of college students. Do you know how much 100 pounds of gold
> costs? If I were to give it to you now, I'd have to ask you for twice as
> much, plus a sizable amount of interest, when I won.

No interest involved, gold retains it value pretty well. Send
it anytime (soon, or admit you're unsure).

> > > > >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > > > >> Either:

> > > > >> 1. Both men and women need a beard
> > > > >> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard

> > > > >> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.

> > > > Facial hair is a good question for evolution, but not in the way
> > > > john sees it. Before we explore it, let's ask a couple of
> > > > related questions:

> > > > 1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?

> > Because it drives evolutionist mad trying to figure a
> > good reason for them to have such an appearance and
> > no usable function for improved survival.

> Attracting mates.

THEN OF COURSE HUMANS NEED PLUMES OF FEATHERS TOO!!! AS DO
MONKEYS, FISH, COWS, HORSES, HOUSE FLIES, ....

Duh! Thats the stupidest thing you've ever said stevey. I'm
astounded, you sound as if you actually believe evolution!

What a dork!

> > > > 2) Why do women have large breasts?

> > Are you complaining?

Not me.

> > > > The answer in both cases is that the features in question serve to
> > > > turn the head of the opposite sex. Significantly enough, in fact, that
> > > > the any disadvantage of these features is compensated by sexual selection.

> > Balloona, so why don't men have $100 bills attached to their
> > foreheads???

> You're an idiot.

Nah, but I know a few on alt.atheism.

> You know nothing, so you resort to making "jokes" which
> are never funny and 2/3 of the time, don't even make sense. Just go back
> outside and stare at the clouds some more

Actually clouds are nice sometimes. But trees, fresh air, sunshine,
these are better. God made some great stuff.

> and leave the sensible debates
> to us human beings.

Thats pretty specific, only 5 billion to debate with.

> Who knows, maybe if you stare at the clouds long
> enough, you might see Elvis!

Where'd ya go stevey?

> > You have some theory as to why women stand on the street corners
> > looking for males with $100 bills, and yet they use all sorts
> > of birth control and abortion.

> Probably so they won't get pregnant, John. It pays to stay awake during
> those movies they showed in high school.

Nah, you're missing the whole point (like always). Propagation of
the species, survival of the species, maximum production of
offspring. Well there they are, on the street corners, only
looking for CASH, and no desire to get pregnant. You don't
see fish doing this, or cows, or horses, .... You just see
the fish, cows, horses ... getting the offspring going. No
desire for CASH, and no stopping of the pregnancy.

> > Evolution continues to fail.

It always failed.

> At least according to those who know nothing about it.

It's made up. EVERYBODY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION
SINCE ITS A "MOVING GUESS" TARGET. I can spin evolutionists
round and round for hours. It's pointless but they're
twits and hold to the farse.

> > Why do women put padding in their shoulders and wear spiked shoes?
> > If women really need this stuff, then why hasn't evolution
> > already taken care of the need??? Evolution fails again...

> John, I'm pretty sure this will be my last post to you. Your
> intelligence is actually lessening as the days go by. Women *don't* need
> shoulder pads or high heels! It has nothing to do with evolution, John!

Ah, no no no. You said the peacock needs to be attractive to
the other sex. But here women are doing things NOT ALREADY
SET UP to their appearance. Things they drastically try
to fix. Evolution totally screws up with women. It didn't
push for women to have NO HAIR on the legs, NO HAIR under
the arms, perfect complextion, thin eyebrows, long lashes,
dark upper eye lids, lightened lower eye lids, ect...

Evolution completely bombed where women are concerned, even
women know this and constanly gauge themselves against
other women.

From the evolution standpoint, women shouldn't care in
the least and should just attempt to get pregnant as
often as possible. The good old "mass production mode".

See how funny evolution is? It's total nonsense.

God specifically made women shorter (on the whole) than
men, and made them so they'd want man's attention.

> > Why do gays date gays? Why do lesbians date lesbians?

> Because they want to.

NO PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES. Ooops! How'd evolution
take this path when it violates the golden rule?????

> > Evolution fails again.

Well of course.

> How so? The population is pretty stable, and since human beings are
> fertile all year round, sex doesn't just have to be for procreation.

NO NO NO, I distinctly read that evolution happens over BILLIONS
of years. So homosexuals have been around for more than just
recently. Obviously they've always existed. SO HOW COME EVOLUTION
IS OFF MAKING NON PROCREATING BEINGS?????

DUH! Evolution fails again.

> > Why do men join wars in progress?

> Religion, mostly.

Nope! From what you've said, evolution pushes for optimizing
the propagation of the species. WARS DESTROY THE VERY
SPECIES AT WAR WITH ITSELF.

Duh!

> > Evolution fails again.

Poor stevey.

> Defending territory is actually supported by evolution. What makes you
> think wars defeat evolution?

Nope, it's completely against PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES!
Evolution contradicts itself with WAR. It's plain as day,
but YOU ARE BLINDED by the "big theory", it's insane.

> > Evolution makes no sense for the above stuff, especially the
> > gay and lesbian parts. Evolution really messes up here doesn't
> > it ... Of course evolution never made sense anyway.

> What are you talking about? How has anything you said disproved evolution?

Do you agree homosexuals don't reproduce?? Then how does evolution
support homosexuals. Obviously ALL would have been dropped
long ago in favor of the the SPECIES PRODUCING heterosexuals.
It never happened, evolution is a farse.

> > > > Now facial hair (IIRC) varies considerably around the globe, but is quite
> > > > prominent in most people of European descent. So prominent, that if
> > > > left unchecked, hair above the lip can grow long enough to obstruct
> > > > the mouth. How can such a feature be allowed to persist ( from
> > > > an evolutionary perspective)? Hmm....

> > Yes, and whats USEFULL to men MUST be NEEDED by women. Beards
> > just destroy evolution.

> I'm going to say this one last time, John,

Like this will make it actually worthwhile.

> <deep breath>

You must be scared to say it.

> BEARDS ARE NOT USEFUL!!!! THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE!!!!

Exactly (you've faced your fear), and this shows evolution
AGAIN as a failure of a theory.

> THEY ARE JUST SIDE
> EFFECTS OF TESTOSTERONE!!!!

Oh, so those races where men have almost no beards,
obviously are missing the ALL IMPORTANT testosterone?

HOW ABOUT MEN PEAKING IN SEXUAL PERFORMANCE AT 18 YEARS???
(Duh stevey, not much of a beard seen on 18 year olds!)

Evolution wipes out again!!!

> THERE'S NOT A MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD ALIVE
> ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT NEEDS A BEARD!!!!

I agree, evolution sucks pretty bad.

> BEARDS NEITHER PROVE NOR
> DISPROVE ANYTHING!!!!

Except that evolution should have been dropped long ago.
Didn't Darwin eventually say he felt it was the worst
theory ever presented. Ya, he finally came to his senses.

> > > Which is my point exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And do
> > > mustaches really obstruct the mouth enough to worry about?

> > From the "evolution designed everything" standpoint, there's ZIP
> > reason for beards or mustaches. Yet men got them designed in
> > by Mr. Evolution. Ya right.

> When did I say that evolution designed everything? As I've been saying
> since you first posted your insane message, beards are not designed by
> evolution. They're just there. There's no reason for them to be there,
> they just are. Evolution didn't design them, nor did god.

Oh, so evolution just designs random crud again. So eyes just
randomly happened too? No real reason for them? Evolution is
consistantly inconsistant and varies depending on who you're
talking with and what subject is being discussed. Sounds like
Hinduism. Hmm....

For now, you're just confused, someday you'll figure
it out.

> > God did it, it's been known for thousands of years.

> Wait a second, even if you managed to disprove evolution

Which proof out of the MANY presented are you refering to?
(God tends to trash evolution too)

> (which you will
> never do), how do you know that the god of the bible made everything?

Because he gave proof, the proof is in the bible, history,
and his creation. If you ignore it, you'll miss out.

> It
> seems I already asked this question. Did you delete it? If so, why?

You probably erased it.

> > But the prideful still reject God.

> Only the stupid reject evolution.

Change that reject to accept, then you're right.

> > > > Simply saying "testosterone did it" is only a very small part of
> > > > the story and likely an insufficient explantation.

> > Exactly, since they say evolution would design only what's needed
> > for the most optimal survivability of the species.

> Nobody ever said that, John!!! Listen!

I can send Real Audio too.

> > Apparently evolution hasn't been informed of it's vast errors

> Give me some.

More? You're trolling.

> > (beards aren't
> > needed and aren't consistantly applied).

> They aren't needed, you're right. Did anyone say they were?

EVOLUTION TAKES THE PATH FOR INCREASED SPECIES PROPAGATION.
BEARDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. BEARDS ARE NOT CONSISTANTLY
APPLIED AND HAVE NO FUNCTION.

(evolution bombs, it's either exactingly detailed for the vision
system, or randomly inconsistant for the beard, take your pick)

> > > It's better than saying "God made it that way." If you give a woman
> > > enough testosterone, she will grow a beard. So whether it's the whole
> > > answer or not, it is at least indirectly responsible.

> > Duh! You're tweeking the design. What do you expect? Sure you
> > can graft a mans organ onto a woman, but then what?
> > Is this proof of evolution? How would modifying a woman
> > prove or support evolution in any way?

> Listen, numbskull! I don't expect beards to prove evolution. You
> shouldn't expect beards to disprove evolution.

But they do all by themselves, I didn't even have to look to
far to find a simple "evolution destructor".

> The fact that women grow
> beards if they are given testosterone is direct support for what I was
> claiming all along, that TESTOSTERONE CAUSES BEARDS!

So what? Evolution had no reason to use testosterone in the first
place. Dogs have hairy faces, both male and female. Fish have
no beards. Don't forget stevey, evolution is looking for
increasing the species and took the pain and effort to
design fully functional EYES without lots of extranious
garbage. Yet here comes men with beards and women with none.
Asians with almost no beards, and Europeans with heavy
beards. Your testosterone theory is pointless.

> It is not evolution
> that causes them, or creation, they're just side effects!

Ah, back to "random design" again! Side effects are now
replacing God? Duh steve, you are grasping.

> > Giving male hormones to a woman is just toying with God's
> > design. It doesn't prove anything.

> Beards don't disprove anything.

Except evolution.

> > Evolution theory says that creatures evolve for best survivability
> > of the species. Beards do NOTHING to improve survivability,

> Or hurt it, for that matter.

Wasted protein, isn't a large portion of the body protein? Why
waste beneficial matter on useless inconsistantly applied
features? Evolution fails again.

> > yet men have them and women don't.

> Women don't have testosterone, either.

But stevey, both men and women have pubic hair.
Both get pubic hair around the same time.
Evolution gave pubic hair to both men and women
but beards became confused and misapplied???

Can't you see the inconsistancy?

> > Proof that evolution is a crock.

> How so?

Because anyone that wants to can trash it so easily.

> John, from this point up until the world ends (2017, right, John?), I am

> never again answering one of your posts.

Where'd you get 2017? This from what I remember was a date you
suggested.

As to you not replying, ya, I know. You said this about 19 times
already. I keep thinking I'll be able to stress you pretty hard,
but then you start replying again. Oh well.

> > So when do I get that 100 lbs of gold stevey?

> It was originally one ounce. You'll get it when Clinton gets inaugurated
> for his third term in office.

Chicken! Cluck cluck cluck....

You all saw it here, Steve E Clinton backing down due to
being hopelessly unsure whether God is there or not.

God is there, Jesus died for your sins, he will forgive
you if you ask him. It's a FREE gift, don't pass it up.

[Stix]

Idiot Blowhard posted the following to alt.atheism,

>As to you not replying, ya, I know. You said this about 19 times
>already. I keep thinking I'll be able to stress you pretty hard,
>but then you start replying again.

Imagine an ugly little child who has nothing better to do than hang within
ear-shot taunting, "stinky-poo, stinky-poo, stinky-poo." Most people see
that it's merely a child and just ignore it, wishing its parents would come
and take it home. The child is obviously ignorant, and the taunts are
meaningless. But eventually the, "stinky-poo, stinky-poo," in such a snotty
little tone becomes so irritating that one feels the need to walk over and
belt the child across the face just to shut it up. Sadly, that is the
reaction the child seeks, and so the child runs away when he sees the
irritation he's caused only to sneak back to within earshot and resume the
brainless, obnoxious chanting.

You are that child, John.

<snip remaining infantile taunting>

Stix.

[ADAM N. OBREN]

If anti-evolutionists have a shred of evidence again evolutionary
mechanisms, they should publish it in the scientific literature and
enlighten the rest of us.

Adam Obren

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

> It's rather difficult to publish the bible in Scientific American.
> Not enough pages (besides they don't like to side with ONE GOD,
> the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
logical conclusions based on that data.

Good thing too, or we wouldn't have such a high standard of living,
medical services that save lives, a much better understanding about
the universe and who we are and where we really came from, what makes
us tick, etc....

Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,
it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
reality is.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas

[Capella]

[Martin Fox]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> ADAM N. OBREN wrote:
>
> > If anti-evolutionists have a shred of evidence again evolutionary
> > mechanisms, they should publish it in the scientific literature and
> > enlighten the rest of us.
>
> It's rather difficult to publish the bible in Scientific American.
> Not enough pages (besides they don't like to side with ONE GOD,
> the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

Some time ago I received a list of reasons why God could never get
tenured at a university. One reason is that His results were never
published in a refereed journal.

Martin Fox

[Avital Pilpel]

Other reasons:

1. He wrote only one work.
2. In HEBREW??? And you want a tenure?
3. What has he done SINCE he created the world?
4. We had problems reproducing the results.
5. Some doubt that he did it himself.

--
Avital Pilpel.

=====================================
The majority is never right.

-Lazarus Long
=====================================

[Elmer Bataitis]

Martin Fox wrote:

> Some time ago I received a list of reasons why God could never get
> tenured at a university. One reason is that His results were never
> published in a refereed journal.

It is only god's results that *are* published in the refereed journals.
The bible is a bit more problematic ;-)
=

******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =

******************************************************************

[Gully Foyle]

On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 00:42:27 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

>steve EX CLINTON wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Feb 1997, Michael R. James wrote:
>>
>> > Steve EX CHRISTIAN wrote:
>
>Hey stevey, I'm still waiting for the 100 lbs of gold? What's

>the deal? Only 3 guys left on alt.atheistm? No spendable cash?
>Typical.

>
>> > >On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
>> > >> Either:
>
>> > >> 1. Both men and women need a beard
>> > >> 2. Both men and women don't need a beard
>
>> > >> Which is it? Obviously evolution fails miserably.
>

>> > Facial hair is a good question for evolution, but not in the way
>> > john sees it. Before we explore it, let's ask a couple of
>> > related questions:
>
>> > 1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?
>
>Because it drives evolutionist mad trying to figure a
>good reason for them to have such an appearance and
>no usable function for improved survival.
>

Is it my imagination, or are you getting dumber?

>> > 2) Why do women have large breasts?
>
>Are you complaining?
>

You shouldn't even reply to a message about breasts John, you will go
to hell.

>> > The answer in both cases is that the features in question serve to
>> > turn the head of the opposite sex. Significantly enough, in fact, that
>> > the any disadvantage of these features is compensated by sexual selection.
>
>Balloona, so why don't men have $100 bills attached to their
>foreheads???

No they wear expensive suits and drive expensive cars, same effect.
Not that you would have worked that out.

>You have some theory as to why women stand on the street corners
>looking for males with $100 bills, and yet they use all sorts

>of birth control and abortion. Evolution continues to fail.
>

Because human beings with their big brains have worked out that you
can take the sexual pleasure (natures carrot) and not have reproduce
(which isn't always feasible). In this case it's done for money. Do
you cruise whores often John?

>Why do women put padding in their shoulders and wear spiked shoes?
>If women really need this stuff, then why hasn't evolution
>already taken care of the need??? Evolution fails again...
>

No, you failed high school.

>Why do gays date gays? Why do lesbians date lesbians?

>Evolution fails again.
>

Why do you jerk off not only yourself but everyone else as well?

>Why do men join wars in progress? Evolution fails again.
>

To defend their country (tribe) and ensure its survival.

>Evolution makes no sense for the above stuff, especially the
>gay and lesbian parts. Evolution really messes up here doesn't
>it ... Of course evolution never made sense anyway.
>

No, you don't have sense and don't make sense. If you would stick your
nose into a book now and again you might actually learn something.

>Oh ya, and my Pioneer stereo just evolved (uh, duh, that's it).
>

Why weren't there stereos around 2000, 1000, or 100 years ago?

>> > Now facial hair (IIRC) varies considerably around the globe, but is quite
>> > prominent in most people of European descent. So prominent, that if
>> > left unchecked, hair above the lip can grow long enough to obstruct
>> > the mouth. How can such a feature be allowed to persist ( from
>> > an evolutionary perspective)? Hmm....
>
>Yes, and whats USEFULL to men MUST be NEEDED by women. Beards
>just destroy evolution.
>

No, you reinforce it.

>> Which is my point exactly. Evolution has nothing to do with it. And do
>> mustaches really obstruct the mouth enough to worry about?
>
>From the "evolution designed everything" standpoint, there's ZIP
>reason for beards or mustaches. Yet men got them designed in
>by Mr. Evolution. Ya right.
>

How long is gods beard? Does he use a barber or does he trim it
himself?

>God did it, it's been known for thousands of years. But the
>prideful still reject God.
>

There are many religions and beliefs older than xtianity, why doesn't
that fact make them more valid?

>> > Simply saying "testosterone did it" is only a very small part of
>> > the story and likely an insufficient explantation.
>
>Exactly, since they say evolution would design only what's needed

>for the most optimal survivability of the species. Apparently
>evolution hasn't been informed of it's vast errors (beards aren't

>needed and aren't consistantly applied).
>

Still spewing what you have been told in church.

>> It's better than saying "God made it that way." If you give a woman
>> enough testosterone, she will grow a beard. So whether it's the whole
>> answer or not, it is at least indirectly responsible.
>
>Duh! You're tweeking the design. What do you expect? Sure you
>can graft a mans organ onto a woman, but then what?
>Is this proof of evolution? How would modifying a woman
>prove or support evolution in any way?
>

>Giving male hormones to a woman is just toying with God's
>design. It doesn't prove anything.
>

Not to someone like you.

>Evolution theory says that creatures evolve for best survivability
>of the species. Beards do NOTHING to improve survivability,

>yet men have them and women don't. Proof that evolution is a crock.

So god gave men beards because he has one? Now that's a crock.

>
>So when do I get that 100 lbs of gold stevey?

Moron.
_________________________________________________________________

Due to unreliable news feed, send me an e-mailed
copy of your follow-up to this post.

Remove the Z at the end of my e-mail address,
this has been placed there to stop junk mail.
_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Life is as tedious as a twice told tale

Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man.

the Bard of Avon
_________________________________________________________________

[John P. Boatwright]

[Jack King]

> On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 00:42:27 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

> >> > 1) Why do peacocks have long, awkward tail feathers?
> >
> >Because it drives evolutionist mad trying to figure a
> >good reason for them to have such an appearance and
> >no usable function for improved survival.
> >
>

It shouldn't bother evolutionists. There is competiton between
sexual selection and natural selection. Sometimes they are in
conflict. Actually, it really boils down to who can mate and
pass his genes on. You can have a creature who is put together
so well that he is a literal survival machine, but if he can't
attract the female, none of those "good" genes are passed on.
The bottom line is, he's got to get a date for saturday night.

> >> > 2) Why do women have large breasts?
> >

Desmond Morris (_The Naked Ape_), had an interesting theory.

"Supposing we had reached the stage where the female signalled sexually
to the male from behind with a pair of fleshy, hemispherical buttocks
and a pair of bright red genital lips, or labia. Supposing the male
had evolved a powerful sexual responsivenes to those specific signals.
Supposing that, at this point in evolution, the species became
increasingly
vertical and frontally orientated in its social contacts...Can we, if
we look at the frontal regiontions of the females of our species, see
any
structures that might possibly be mimics of the ancient genital display
of hemispherical buttocks and red labia? The answer stands out as
clearly
as the female bosom itself. The protuberant, hemispherical breasts of
the female must surely be copies of the fleshy buttocks, and the shapely
defined red libs around the mouth must be copies of the red labia." p.
63

All of this seems rather bizarre to me, since the breast is a rather
complex organ, but it is clear that its function extends beyond
that of just a milk dispenser.

Jack

[qball]

>Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,
>it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
>reality is.

Dear Capella,

I don't entirely disagree with you. I just want to add

Religion is not for for measuring or explaining the 'how' of the
universe. It is indeed a vehicle for meeting personal psychological
and spiritual needs and even physcial needs (since it has always
striven to see the economic pie fairly divided). And since religion
like sex , certainly involves human imagination it transcends mere
physical, 'empirical' reality' to touch on spiritual reality as well.

... the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Co 3:6

Home Page: http://jupiter.orc.ca/~qball/

[g...@3-cities.com]

"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

>ADAM N. OBREN wrote:
>
>> If anti-evolutionists have a shred of evidence again evolutionary
>> mechanisms, they should publish it in the scientific literature and
>> enlighten the rest of us.
>
>It's rather difficult to publish the bible in Scientific American.

Probably since it isn't scientific.

Geo
"Sorry, I didn't look it up. Idon't own a copy of the book, and I didn't
want to peruse my literature or go to the library again."

IOW:

"I am too ignorant or too lazy to do the actual
research. I will rely on what someone else tells
me and if I believe it, I will look for evidence to
support my convictions." - Juanita the scientist.

[Son of the Dawn]

>Actually, God's results have been published world wide. He made
>every single atom you'll ever find, and every other one that
>you'll NEVER find. There are many, many web pages highlighting
>the works of God, and the bible has been published world wide.

>Take a look at http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god

>Note in the Jesus and Peter image from Hubble Space Telescope
>that even the green arc was described by the bible.

>The stuff God predicts just keeps coming true. Evolution doesn't
>stand a chance against God. You will see soon.

I'm gonna lower myself to your standard of debate. That is about the
goddamn most retarded stuff I've ever heard.
You know, I've seen Elvis and "Bob" in tortillas.

I've even seen "Bob" in the gaseous pillars. I know some Xians who
would be quite ashamed of you thinking that you KNOW these things.

Isn't hubris quite a sin? I'd think so.

---------------
Son of the Dawn (Isaiah 14:12)
Rev.NRH
"There cannot be a God, because if there were on, I could not believe
that I was not He." Nietzsche
reve...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~reverend

[John P. Boatwright]

Martin Fox wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > ADAM N. OBREN wrote:

> > > If anti-evolutionists have a shred of evidence again evolutionary
> > > mechanisms, they should publish it in the scientific literature and
> > > enlighten the rest of us.

> > It's rather difficult to publish the bible in Scientific American.

> > Not enough pages (besides they don't like to side with ONE GOD,
> > the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

> Some time ago I received a list of reasons why God could never get
> tenured at a university. One reason is that His results were never
> published in a refereed journal.

Actually, God's results have been published world wide. He made

[Wen-King Su]

In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
:
;Capella wrote:
:> Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of

;> closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
:> logical conclusions based on that data.

;
:You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
;you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
:someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
;eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
:I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
;built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
:built).

Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so
they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
> > Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
> > closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
> > logical conclusions based on that data.
>
> You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
> you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
> someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
> eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
> I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
> built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
> built).
>

> We were all designed and built, given free will to do as we
> please, and free will to accept or reject God. I accept him.

OK, B*ttwipe, who designed your god? Hmmmm?.... I didn't think so.

>
> > Good thing too, or we wouldn't have such a high standard of living,
> > medical services that save lives, a much better understanding about
> > the universe and who we are and where we really came from, what makes
> > us tick, etc....
>

> Nothing wrong with helping people and looking for improved ways
> to help them. Science is great, but GUESSING that God never designed
> us is fairly ignorant. Part of the test is helping others.

Oh, I get it. Science does all these wonderful things for us through
their very accurate method of discerning the universe (the scientific method),
that works great for atomic energy, medical science, space travel, chemistry,
computers, etc... but they are "guessing" when it comes to your particular god.

>
> > Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,
> > it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
> > reality is.
>

> I don't know about religion, but God's word in the bible is completely
> acceptable. But for all those who leap to the GUESS that we randomly
> evolved from chemical mush, from a planet where NO OTHERS have
> acceptable

Believing a book of mythology, with hundreds of errors and contradictions,
obviously biased to stroke people's psychological needs isn't a leap?

> conditions for life (they're ABSOLUTELY LETHAL TO LIFE),

Not primordial life. Primordial life different, it different John.

> from a universe
> that could never have happened (matter is NEVER created in the void of
> a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy).

No, just omniscient, omnipotent supreme beings poof out of nowhere,
what where we thinking?!?...

> Well it's just my
> opinion -- you are wrong. Ye shalt see.

I *shalt* see?

Thou are wrong oh B*ttwipe, thou and thine company ofs believers ofs imaginary
godths. :-)

>
> Give it up Catapilla.

Grow up, I did.

[Scal...@concentric.net]

On Sat, 08 Mar 1997 12:48:09 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

>Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
>that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
>in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
>scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
>FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. ....

Excuse me, but there has been found evidence of the big bang. Why do
you think projects like the Hubble telescope even exist? (this is
only 1 reason) I'm no physicist, but I know that evidence has been
found in the form of background radiation and the expansion of the
universe. Go to the appropriate website to get the details. You act
as if physicists continually make things up and dawdle over them
without any attempt at proof.

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

>
> Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> > In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
>

> > ;Capella wrote:
> > :> Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
> > ;> closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
> > :> logical conclusions based on that data.
>
> > :You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
> > ;you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
> > :someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
> > ;eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
> > :I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
> > ;built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
> > :built).
>

> > Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so
> > they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?
>

> Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
> that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
> in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
> scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
> FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. ....

John are you lying or just ignorant?

The astronomers have been recording red shifts in galaxies for 60 years now
indicating that they are all flying apart, they have measure the cosmic background
radiation and it has a frequency distribution that perfectly matches what is
expected leftover from the big bang, Einstein's relativy predicts it, etc....

> The proof would be seen as matter
> forming continiously over time in a vacuum at 0 deg K, no
> external energy input, 0 Torr, ect... The mass has to build
> up to clump together and build up pressure. The pressure
> then would cause heat (pressure is due to gravitational
> attraction) and thus reach the 40,000,000 deg K necessary
> for fusion in stars. Well, the mass that shows up
> after ANY length of time in the vacuum is:
>

John, tell us what space there was for this mass to clump up in?

> ---- ZERO ----
>
> (If atheist, mark this on your forehead)

No, we'll just mark it down for your I.Q.

>
> Physicists know this as FACT, yet PERSIST in proposing "big bang"
> theories (new ones every few years). In other words, THERE IS
> NO PROOF OF ANY UNIVERSE EVER FORMING WITHOUT A CREATOR.
>
> So here Catapilla stands, accepting that "poof the universe
> just exists one day" and then billions of years later we
> EVOLVED into the humans ect...

Of course not, one "day" a creator poofed out of nowhere,
how silly of us.

>
> Well, we have cars here too and factories putting out cars
> yet they hang on the same "poof, the universe just exists
> one day". It's just as rediculious to think the car evolved
> as it is to think we did since both derive from a FALSE premise.
>
> The only one ever to stand up and admit he created it all
> has been God and he gave proof of his existance again and
> again. See Eze 37 and Jerimiah 16:14,15.

That's a load of nice swill but you didn't answer Wen-King's question:

Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so
they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?

>
> And http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god if you haven't seen
> the stuff already.
>
> Best of luck finding it out.

[Elmer Bataitis]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
> Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
> that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
> in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
> scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE

> FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. .... =

You, of course, have a simple explanation for galactic red shift and the
cosmic microwave background radiation, don't you?

> The proof would be seen as matter
> forming continiously over time in a vacuum at 0 deg K, no

> external energy input, 0 Torr, ect... =

> Well, the mass that shows up
> after ANY length of time in the vacuum is:

> =

> ---- ZERO ----

Wrong.

---- NON ZERO ----

Please read:

"DEMONSTRATION OF THE CASIMIR FORCE IN THE 0.6 TO 6 MU-M RANGE" by
Lamoreaux, S.K. =

Los Alamos Natl Lab,Neutron Sci & Technol Div =

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS v78 (1) : pp5-8 (1997 Jan 6)

Abstract:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
The vacuum stress between closely spaced conducting surfaces, due to
the
modification of the zero-point fluctuations of the electromagnetic
field, has
been conclusively demonstrated. The measurement employed an
electromechanical
system based on a torsion pendulum. Agreement with theory at the level
of 5%
is obtained.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

This paper demonstrates the model of a *vacuum* as having dynamic
properties of its own. Therefore, the idea that matter may spontaneously
form *in a vacuum* is a distinct possibility.

[Peter Kirby]

Elmer Bataitis wrote:
>
> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
> > that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
> > in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
> > scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
> > FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. ....
>

> You, of course, have a simple explanation for galactic red shift and the
> cosmic microwave background radiation, don't you?

Of course he does. It's the simple three letter "explanation" the
underlies all religion:

G O D D I D I T

What predictive power! How explanatory! What a theory! Is there a
galactic red shift? God did it. No galactic red shift? God did it.
Is there cosmic microwave background radiation? God did it. No
background radiation? God did it. Fossils in the ground? God did it.
No fossils? God did it. Comparative biology suggests common descent?
God did it. God, god, god, god, god, god, god, god, god.

Never have I crossed such an elegant theory! All my questions are
answered! Screw all that stuff about evidence, rationality, and
falsifiabilty! I think I'll become a fundy today! They've got it all
figured out! I no longer have to make guesses and say maybes! I no
longer have to back up my ideas with evidence! JESUS is the answer!
Any questions?

In Him (whatever that means),
Peter

PS- I was being sarcastic. :-)

[John P. Boatwright]

Capella wrote:
> Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
> closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
> logical conclusions based on that data.

You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
built).

We were all designed and built, given free will to do as we

please, and free will to accept or reject God. I accept him.

> Good thing too, or we wouldn't have such a high standard of living,

> medical services that save lives, a much better understanding about
> the universe and who we are and where we really came from, what makes
> us tick, etc....

Nothing wrong with helping people and looking for improved ways
to help them. Science is great, but GUESSING that God never designed
us is fairly ignorant. Part of the test is helping others.

> Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,
> it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
> reality is.

I don't know about religion, but God's word in the bible is completely
acceptable. But for all those who leap to the GUESS that we randomly
evolved from chemical mush, from a planet where NO OTHERS have
acceptable

conditions for life (they're ABSOLUTELY LETHAL TO LIFE), from a universe

that could never have happened (matter is NEVER created in the void of

a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy). Well it's just my

opinion -- you are wrong. Ye shalt see.

Give it up Catapilla.

[John P. Boatwright]

Wen-King Su wrote:

> In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:

> ;Capella wrote:
> :> Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
> ;> closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
> :> logical conclusions based on that data.

> :You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
> ;you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
> :someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
> ;eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
> :I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
> ;built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
> :built).

> Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so
> they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?

Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and

that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE

FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. .... The proof would be seen as matter

forming continiously over time in a vacuum at 0 deg K, no

external energy input, 0 Torr, ect... The mass has to build
up to clump together and build up pressure. The pressure
then would cause heat (pressure is due to gravitational
attraction) and thus reach the 40,000,000 deg K necessary

for fusion in stars. Well, the mass that shows up

after ANY length of time in the vacuum is:

---- ZERO ----

(If atheist, mark this on your forehead)

Physicists know this as FACT, yet PERSIST in proposing "big bang"

theories (new ones every few years). In other words, THERE IS
NO PROOF OF ANY UNIVERSE EVER FORMING WITHOUT A CREATOR.

So here Catapilla stands, accepting that "poof the universe
just exists one day" and then billions of years later we
EVOLVED into the humans ect...

Well, we have cars here too and factories putting out cars

yet they hang on the same "poof, the universe just exists
one day". It's just as rediculious to think the car evolved
as it is to think we did since both derive from a FALSE premise.

The only one ever to stand up and admit he created it all
has been God and he gave proof of his existance again and
again. See Eze 37 and Jerimiah 16:14,15.

And http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god if you haven't seen

[Daniel Sevo]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

> Actually, God's results have been published world wide. He made
> every single atom you'll ever find, and every other one that
> you'll NEVER find. There are many, many web pages highlighting
> the works of God, and the bible has been published world wide.
>
> Take a look at http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god
>
> Note in the Jesus and Peter image from Hubble Space Telescope
> that even the green arc was described by the bible.
>
> The stuff God predicts just keeps coming true. Evolution doesn't
> stand a chance against God. You will see soon.

Forget God, forget evolution etc.etc...
I have a new 'theory'. Actually, it's no theory but rather the truth
about our universe.
There is a super intelligence out there, it's called 'GurgelGnutte'.
It exist's in non-linear time and it created itself just as it created
our universe! Well, it did not 'create' mankind but merely the
conditions which mankind is a consequence of. It doesn't care the
slightest about us, (which would explain why it doesn't help to pray)
we're only one of about a trillion of intelligent lifeforms in the
universe.
Because GurgelGnutte exists in non lineaer time it doesn't bother making
predictions about the future (since the future is a consequence of
linear-time and only relevant to us who live in it).
The reason I know all this though, is that he contacted me and let me
know... I guess it picked me out to tell the world how it REALLY is...

Now, can anyone come and tell me my 'theory' does not go along with
the observed facts...

Just a reminder to Mr. Boatwright and your 'followers'

The Unforgiven

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

>
> Capella wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>

> > > Capella wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>

> > > We were all designed and built, given free will to do as we
> > > please, and free will to accept or reject God. I accept him.
>

> > OK, B*ttwipe, who designed your god? Hmmmm?.... I didn't think so.
>

> You of all people know (Hmm... you could debate yourself for
> hours ... seven years of preaching, a few as an atheist, you're
> peaking now ...). God said he's always been and always will be.

I've been an Atheist for almost 20 years now, thank you. I've tried
both and science and reality are infinitely preferable to closing
eyes, plugging ears and believing in an imaginary father figure,
just because it is psychologically desirable.

>
> All of science accepts the limit of the speed of light, to them
> it's easy to accept the speed of light "always has " and
> "always will" existing.
>
> What's the problem with God existing within the same time frame?
>

Wrong, scientists say that the light speed applies to this universe, they
do *not* say that the physical laws of the universe are infinite in
time, time began when the universe started expanding, therefore nothing
can be infinite in time in both directions.

<snipped for brevity>

> > Oh, I get it. Science does all these wonderful things for us through
> > their very accurate method of discerning the universe (the scientific method),
> > that works great for atomic energy, medical science, space travel, chemistry,
> > computers, etc... but they are "guessing" when it comes to your particular god.
>

> Sagan GUESSED and look what it got him. NOTHING. The proof was actually
> right there, he was staring at it all along... TOO FUNNY!!! I'm sorry
> I'm all choked up right now, it's just too soon to discuss this....
>
> What the heck http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god actual things
> Sagan was viewing and didn't have a clue as to them answering
> his guestions about God. The poor guy!
>
> Please, I, I have to have a moment to regain my composure.

Another nice piece of swill to try to deflect the question, but why is science such
a good method for determining everything else in the universe except where it points
out the ridiculousness of the Bible and religion?

>
> > > > Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,
> > > > it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
> > > > reality is.
>
> > > I don't know about religion, but God's word in the bible is completely
> > > acceptable. But for all those who leap to the GUESS that we randomly
> > > evolved from chemical mush, from a planet where NO OTHERS have
> > > acceptable
>

> > Believing a book of mythology, with hundreds of errors and contradictions,
> > obviously biased to stroke people's psychological needs isn't a leap?
>

> I've seen your posts, people have been showing error after error
> in your presentation. I do admit though, you were led off track
> quite well. Probably some joker wrote a book about doubting God
> and you bought it, it convinced you, and now you copy it to the
> newsgroups. But they just keep knocking holes in every post.
> Maybe someday you'll see the error.
>

You don't know me at all, the fact that we Atheists shoot your Bible
and beliefs down in flames daily really makes you uncomfortable in your
beliefs doesn't it? It did me, I wish I would have had this information
earlier in my Christian days, I wouldn't have waisted so much time.

> > > conditions for life (they're ABSOLUTELY LETHAL TO LIFE),
>

> > Not primordial life. Primordial life different, it different John.
>

> Nah, Venus +900 degrees??? Nope, no life there. Mars with crater
> after crater, piles of them, and nothing but bolders, and pebbles.
> Sure, Goe would give anything to live there, and I'd do everything
> in my power to help him on his way. But the fact remains, the
> planets other than Earth are worthless for life. An easy indicator
> that God made it all, since no other planets support life and
> there's several others there to start up life on. What happened
> to wreck their life generating processes??? Didn't all the
> planets show up in a similar fashion???

I don't have time to waist telling you about the position of the planets
in relation to the Sun, their mass and their ability to hold on to particular
atmospheres, etc... This had to do with probabilities in the formation of the
solar system, there are almost certainly many, many planets around other stars
that can support intelligent (and fundamentalist) life.

>
> Just look at those planets. They are right there fully described
> on the net. NOT A SINGLE CHANCE OF LIFE, let alone the complex
> male/female/child human being life. Those rocks (planets) are
> fully DEAD.

There could have been microbe life on Mars. You don't know anything about
any science you talk about do you?

>
> More evidence from God that he did it all, not evolution.

>
> > > from a universe
> > > that could never have happened (matter is NEVER created in the void of
> > > a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy).
>

> > No, just omniscient, omnipotent supreme beings poof out of nowhere,
> > what where we thinking?!?...
>

> You mean "when" were we thinking. TIP: Just ask any old physicist you
> like, matter never forms in a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external
> energy, ect... It's a foregone conclusion that they built their
> castle out of sand. You believed it. And you had the truth once,
> but dumped it for some goofup's guess as to how the universe formed.
>
> Get the picture: NOT ONE PHYSICIST HAS YET STOPPED ME FROM SAYING
> THIS OR EVEN HINTED THERE WOULD BE ANY ERROR IN THE MASS FORMING
> IN A VACUUM PROBLEM. 2 top physicists have inquired "hey what's
> the physics problem, maybe I can answer it". Duh, they never return.
>
> Castles built out of sand.
>
> Or in your previous bible knowledge days, "the guy who built
> his house on sand and the rains came and washed it all away".
>
> God built it all.

Let's see, physicist know that we have no evidence from before the
big bang and can't comment anywhere they don't have evidence so they
courageously choose to remain silent on the issue.

You instead have to conjure up a god out of nowhere to explain it.

Just like primitive people who not knowing what the Sun really was
decided to worship it as a god.

To them lack of knowledge equaled god.

Same with you.

>
> > > Well it's just my
> > > opinion -- you are wrong. Ye shalt see.
>

> > I *shalt* see?
>
> Yes, ye shalt see.

>
> > Thou are wrong oh B*ttwipe, thou and thine company ofs believers ofs imaginary
> > godths. :-)
>

> I wish I could talk like that. But then you are the SEVEN YEAR BIBLE
> THUMPER aren't you...
> Keep practicing, your getting there! :-)

> > > Give it up Catapilla.
>
> > Grow up, I did.
>

> No, the atheism :)

[Wen-King Su]

In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:

:

;Wen-King Su wrote:
:
;> In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
:
;> ;Capella wrote:
:> :> Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
;> ;> closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
:> :> logical conclusions based on that data.
;
:> :You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
;> ;you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
:> :someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
;> ;eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
:> :I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
;> ;built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
:> :built).
;
:> Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so
;> they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?
:
;Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
:that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
;in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
:scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
;FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. .... The proof would be seen as matter

:forming continiously over time in a vacuum at 0 deg K, no

;external energy input, 0 Torr, ect... The mass has to build
:up to clump together and build up pressure. The pressure
;then would cause heat (pressure is due to gravitational
:attraction) and thus reach the 40,000,000 deg K necessary
;for fusion in stars. Well, the mass that shows up
:after ANY length of time in the vacuum is:
;
: ---- ZERO ----

What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
nothing? The Big Bang theory, which you appears to be referring to,
postulates that the universe was once a singularity, which is not nothing.
It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big
Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
there was a time dimension before that.

[xona]

Television and the 700 Club

xona

[Christopher Beattie]

Capella wrote:
>
> I've been an Atheist for almost 20 years now, thank you. I've tried
> both and science and reality are infinitely preferable to closing
> eyes, plugging ears and believing in an imaginary father figure,
> just because it is psychologically desirable.

Then how about believing it because its true?
(OK I know I am crossposting here, because this thread is crossposted,
so I will not try to evengelize here at this time.)

Science is wonderful, I've got a degree in it. (Physics to be exact
with an astrophysics minor B.S. but my Master is in Computer Science.)

Reality is an interesting notion. Reality tends to want to intrude on
what we think reality is. We get upset when the world really isn't
flat, when different weights do fall at the same speeds, and when
the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference.

Religion is not incompatible with either science or reality. If
anyone thinks so, then they either do not know Science, Reality or
Religion.

> > All of science accepts the limit of the speed of light, to them
> > it's easy to accept the speed of light "always has " and
> > "always will" existing.
> >
> > What's the problem with God existing within the same time frame?
> >
>
> Wrong, scientists say that the light speed applies to this universe, they
> do *not* say that the physical laws of the universe are infinite in
> time, time began when the universe started expanding, therefore nothing
> can be infinite in time in both directions.

Time didn't begin at the so called "beginning of the universe." (Actually
the "big bang" or the point in which the universe turned from opaque
to transparent happened later, and at that point we even understand the
physics somewhat, as opposed to the very earliest moments.) Traditionally
time was considered an infinite linear progression with information before
the "beginning of the universe" something that could not be known with
any certanty. Hawkings, has theorized that time curves as does space,
so that a closed universe would have a finite space and finite time,
looping into itself.

Thus the universe IS. Space is, time is. Time is a local idea that
applies to us because we are in the universe. We perceive time, we
cannot perceive or think about anywhere outside of time itself, since
all our thoughts are thoughts in time. Even science fiction fails
miserably to understand the paridox of anyone outside time.

Of course if you want to start talking about God and you can't even
understand the nature of anything outside the reference of time, then
scientifically speaking, any discussion is on thin ice, in either way.

> You don't know me at all, the fact that we Atheists shoot your Bible
> and beliefs down in flames daily really makes you uncomfortable in your
> beliefs doesn't it? It did me, I wish I would have had this information
> earlier in my Christian days, I wouldn't have waisted so much time.

You do? Or is it that you put up straw men with the words "Bible"
strapped to them and then try to shoot them down.

> I don't have time to waist telling you about the position of the planets
> in relation to the Sun, their mass and their ability to hold on to particular
> atmospheres, etc... This had to do with probabilities in the formation of the
> solar system, there are almost certainly many, many planets around other stars
> that can support intelligent (and fundamentalist) life.

Hard to prove, given that up until recently we have had a hard time
finding planets smaller than Jupiter in other solar systems. However,
logic and really large numbers does suggest that life somewhere else
out there might be possible. Fundamentalist life ... oh I wouldn't
wish that curse on any stellar system. ;-) (Joke for the humor impared.)

--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |

[Capella]

Christopher Beattie wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
> >
> > I've been an Atheist for almost 20 years now, thank you. I've tried
> > both and science and reality are infinitely preferable to closing
> > eyes, plugging ears and believing in an imaginary father figure,
> > just because it is psychologically desirable.
>
> Then how about believing it because its true?
> (OK I know I am crossposting here, because this thread is crossposted,
> so I will not try to evengelize here at this time.)
>
> Science is wonderful, I've got a degree in it. (Physics to be exact
> with an astrophysics minor B.S. but my Master is in Computer Science.)
>
> Reality is an interesting notion. Reality tends to want to intrude on
> what we think reality is. We get upset when the world really isn't
> flat, when different weights do fall at the same speeds, and when
> the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference.
>
> Religion is not incompatible with either science or reality.

Completely wrong. Hang around this newsgroup awhile if you need it
explained.

>If
> anyone thinks so, then they either do not know Science, Reality or
> Religion.

Nothing is incompatible with religion in the mind of someone who needs
to rationalize it's validity. Maybe you should study psychology with
an open mind and see why you feel you have a need to believe in an
imaginary father figure.

>
> > > All of science accepts the limit of the speed of light, to them
> > > it's easy to accept the speed of light "always has " and
> > > "always will" existing.
> > >
> > > What's the problem with God existing within the same time frame?
> > >
> >
> > Wrong, scientists say that the light speed applies to this universe, they
> > do *not* say that the physical laws of the universe are infinite in
> > time, time began when the universe started expanding, therefore nothing
> > can be infinite in time in both directions.
>
> Time didn't begin at the so called "beginning of the universe."

If it did, we have no idea of what it was. Stephen Hawking says what happened
*before* the big bang is like referring to what is north of the north pole.

>(Actually
> the "big bang" or the point in which the universe turned from opaque
> to transparent happened later,

You have no way of knowing that since no information can survive at the cusp.
I think you should take this conversation (that you know what happened before
the big bang) to sci.astro or sci.physics and see how quickly you get laughed at.

>and at that point we even understand the
> physics somewhat, as opposed to the very earliest moments.) Traditionally
> time was considered an infinite linear progression with information before
> the "beginning of the universe" something that could not be known with
> any certanty. Hawkings, has theorized that time curves as does space,
> so that a closed universe would have a finite space and finite time,
> looping into itself.
>
> Thus the universe IS. Space is, time is. Time is a local idea that
> applies to us because we are in the universe. We perceive time, we
> cannot perceive or think about anywhere outside of time itself, since
> all our thoughts are thoughts in time. Even science fiction fails
> miserably to understand the paridox of anyone outside time.
>
> Of course if you want to start talking about God and you can't even
> understand the nature of anything outside the reference of time, then
> scientifically speaking, any discussion is on thin ice, in either way.

Then all bets are off, any sort of gods could exist outside our experience
but not have any effect on our lives, so they are of no consequence.

>
> > You don't know me at all, the fact that we Atheists shoot your Bible
> > and beliefs down in flames daily really makes you uncomfortable in your
> > beliefs doesn't it? It did me, I wish I would have had this information
> > earlier in my Christian days, I wouldn't have waisted so much time.
>
> You do? Or is it that you put up straw men with the words "Bible"
> strapped to them and then try to shoot them down.

No straw men needed, if you need arguments of the invalidity of Christianity
and the Bible just hang around our newsgroup for a month or so and collect
at least a few dozen.

>
> > I don't have time to waist telling you about the position of the planets
> > in relation to the Sun, their mass and their ability to hold on to particular
> > atmospheres, etc... This had to do with probabilities in the formation of the
> > solar system, there are almost certainly many, many planets around other stars
> > that can support intelligent (and fundamentalist) life.
>
> Hard to prove, given that up until recently we have had a hard time
> finding planets smaller than Jupiter in other solar systems. However,
> logic and really large numbers does suggest that life somewhere else
> out there might be possible. Fundamentalist life ... oh I wouldn't
> wish that curse on any stellar system. ;-) (Joke for the humor impared.)

Finally we agree on something. ;-)

>
> --
> | _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
> | /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
> | / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
> | /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
> | |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |

--

[Jim Jarrell]

How do you as an atheist posit such things as laws of science? If your
world view were true science would be impossible. To you a law is an
observed occurence, it has to do with probability. But this is to beg
the question. How do you know that the future will be like the past,
what is your justification?

By the way, most of Frued's theories have been discarded by modern
psychology.

Jim Jarrell
President, Society for Christian Reconstruction at UMCP
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jimmon/Power.html

[Peter Kirby]

(Is this Robin Griffin under a different name? Says that atheists can't
believe in natural laws, *completely* changes the subject in his
response...well, maybe it is!)

Jim Jarrell wrote:
>
> How do you as an atheist posit such things as laws of science?

They are useful descriptions of reality.

> If your
> world view were true science would be impossible.

Prove it. (BTW, there is no "atheist world view." You can't make a
world view out of a lack of belief.)

> To you a law is an
> observed occurence, it has to do with probability. But this is to beg
> the question. How do you know that the future will be like the past,
> what is your justification?

Common sense. How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow?

> By the way, most of Frued's theories have been discarded by modern
> psychology.

Who cares?

Cheers,
Peter

[John P. Boatwright]

Capella wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Capella wrote:

> > > Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
> > > closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
> > > logical conclusions based on that data.

> > You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
> > you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
> > someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
> > eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
> > I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
> > built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
> > built).

> > We were all designed and built, given free will to do as we

> > please, and free will to accept or reject God. I accept him.

> OK, B*ttwipe, who designed your god? Hmmmm?.... I didn't think so.

You of all people know (Hmm... you could debate yourself for
hours ... seven years of preaching, a few as an atheist, you're
peaking now ...). God said he's always been and always will be.

All of science accepts the limit of the speed of light, to them

it's easy to accept the speed of light "always has " and
"always will" existing.

What's the problem with God existing within the same time frame?

> > > Good thing too, or we wouldn't have such a high standard of living,

> > > medical services that save lives, a much better understanding about
> > > the universe and who we are and where we really came from, what makes
> > > us tick, etc....

> > Nothing wrong with helping people and looking for improved ways
> > to help them. Science is great, but GUESSING that God never designed
> > us is fairly ignorant. Part of the test is helping others.

> Oh, I get it. Science does all these wonderful things for us through
> their very accurate method of discerning the universe (the scientific method),
> that works great for atomic energy, medical science, space travel, chemistry,
> computers, etc... but they are "guessing" when it comes to your particular god.

Sagan GUESSED and look what it got him. NOTHING. The proof was actually
right there, he was staring at it all along... TOO FUNNY!!! I'm sorry
I'm all choked up right now, it's just too soon to discuss this....

What the heck http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god actual things
Sagan was viewing and didn't have a clue as to them answering
his guestions about God. The poor guy!

Please, I, I have to have a moment to regain my composure.

> > > Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,

> > > it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
> > > reality is.

> > I don't know about religion, but God's word in the bible is completely
> > acceptable. But for all those who leap to the GUESS that we randomly
> > evolved from chemical mush, from a planet where NO OTHERS have
> > acceptable

> Believing a book of mythology, with hundreds of errors and contradictions,
> obviously biased to stroke people's psychological needs isn't a leap?

I've seen your posts, people have been showing error after error
in your presentation. I do admit though, you were led off track
quite well. Probably some joker wrote a book about doubting God
and you bought it, it convinced you, and now you copy it to the
newsgroups. But they just keep knocking holes in every post.
Maybe someday you'll see the error.

> > conditions for life (they're ABSOLUTELY LETHAL TO LIFE),

> Not primordial life. Primordial life different, it different John.

Nah, Venus +900 degrees??? Nope, no life there. Mars with crater
after crater, piles of them, and nothing but bolders, and pebbles.
Sure, Goe would give anything to live there, and I'd do everything
in my power to help him on his way. But the fact remains, the
planets other than Earth are worthless for life. An easy indicator
that God made it all, since no other planets support life and
there's several others there to start up life on. What happened
to wreck their life generating processes??? Didn't all the
planets show up in a similar fashion???

Just look at those planets. They are right there fully described

on the net. NOT A SINGLE CHANCE OF LIFE, let alone the complex
male/female/child human being life. Those rocks (planets) are
fully DEAD.

More evidence from God that he did it all, not evolution.

> > from a universe
> > that could never have happened (matter is NEVER created in the void of
> > a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy).

> No, just omniscient, omnipotent supreme beings poof out of nowhere,
> what where we thinking?!?...

You mean "when" were we thinking. TIP: Just ask any old physicist you
like, matter never forms in a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external
energy, ect... It's a foregone conclusion that they built their
castle out of sand. You believed it. And you had the truth once,
but dumped it for some goofup's guess as to how the universe formed.

Get the picture: NOT ONE PHYSICIST HAS YET STOPPED ME FROM SAYING
THIS OR EVEN HINTED THERE WOULD BE ANY ERROR IN THE MASS FORMING
IN A VACUUM PROBLEM. 2 top physicists have inquired "hey what's
the physics problem, maybe I can answer it". Duh, they never return.

Castles built out of sand.

Or in your previous bible knowledge days, "the guy who built
his house on sand and the rains came and washed it all away".

God built it all.

> > Well it's just my
> > opinion -- you are wrong. Ye shalt see.

> I *shalt* see?

Yes, ye shalt see.

> Thou are wrong oh B*ttwipe, thou and thine company ofs believers ofs imaginary
> godths. :-)

I wish I could talk like that. But then you are the SEVEN YEAR BIBLE
THUMPER aren't you...

[John P. Boatwright]

James S. Lovejoy wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Note in the Jesus and Peter image from Hubble Space Telescope
> > that even the green arc was described by the bible.

> I must have missed the part where the Bible said "The Hubble Space
> Telescope will show an image of Jesus and Peter with a green arc."
> Would you mind giving me book,chapter and verse?

The verses are on the site, just below the image discusses
Ezekial and Revelations, and then on the first description article
discussing Matthew "What do HST images have to do with God?".

Look again.

Hmm... some people believe and want descriptive content, others
want scientifically shown step by step proof. Others want verses,
while still others want no verses. There's no way to win, no
way to organize the stuff that satisfies all. And not many
atheists would believe God standing in front of them.

> > The stuff God predicts just keeps coming true. Evolution doesn't
> > stand a chance against God. You will see soon.

> Well of course evolution doesn't stand a chance against God, neither
> does gravity, but since they are both God's tools, why would God
> fight against the very tools he created?

I don't call God's works "evolution", just his creation and his
design variations. Of course you can call this evolution, but
I'm discussing the "evolution" where others insist "God doesn't
exist, evolution did it all" ect...

[John P. Boatwright]

Capella wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Wen-King Su wrote:

> > > In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:

> > > ;Capella wrote:
> > > :> Science doesn't need any gods to discern the universe. Instead of
> > > ;> closing their eyes and wishing, they gather data and arrive at
> > > :> logical conclusions based on that data.

> > > :You mean guessing that seems to fit. Sure I can drive a car that
> > > ;you say "JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE" and completely ignore that
> > > :someone DESIGNED it. Or like you I could just daydream until
> > > ;eventually thinking up some way it "evolved" into being. But
> > > :I think I'll just stick with common sense. The car was designed,
> > > ;built, and runs like the others on the road (also designed and
> > > :built).

> > > Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so

> > > they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?

> > Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
> > that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
> > in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
> > scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
> > FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. ....

> John are you lying or just ignorant?

Just the ABSENCE of FACTS. Ask any physicist.

> The astronomers have been recording red shifts in galaxies for 60 years now
> indicating that they are all flying apart, they have measure the cosmic background
> radiation and it has a frequency distribution that perfectly matches what is
> expected leftover from the big bang, Einstein's relativy predicts it, etc....

No kidding, I know this. But the unanswered question is

WHERE'S THE INITIAL MATTER COME FROM????

Sure the universe is expanding, BIG DEAL, God made it that way.

Oh, sorry (forgot alt.atheism):

"POOOF! INSTANT UNIVERSE" -- Carl Sagan RIP

or is it...

"POOOF! INSTANT UNIVERSE" -- Steven Hawking

or is it...

"POOOF! INSTANT MAGIC" -- ect...

Big deal, guessing about stuff all day long and getting
nowhere. So what, their "POOOF! INSTANT UNIVERSE" has no
predictions fulfilled over centuries and gives no advantage
PERIOD. They also give NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE at all to back
up the "pooof" part.

> > The proof would be seen as matter
> > forming continiously over time in a vacuum at 0 deg K, no
> > external energy input, 0 Torr, ect... The mass has to build
> > up to clump together and build up pressure. The pressure
> > then would cause heat (pressure is due to gravitational
> > attraction) and thus reach the 40,000,000 deg K necessary
> > for fusion in stars. Well, the mass that shows up
> > after ANY length of time in the vacuum is:

> John, tell us what space there was for this mass to clump up in?

Well there's space EVERYWHERE. Where else but EVERYWHERE would
you find the matter start to form. NOPE no matter forming.

Oh, now you'll pull out "SPACE JUST POOFED INTO EXISTANCE TOO".
Do you see how stupid this sounds?? Magic, do you believe in
magic...

I guess the "Big Guess" just folds under it's own failure.

> > ---- ZERO ----

> > (If atheist, mark this on your forehead)

> No, we'll just mark it down for your I.Q.

Hey, is that an insult? Watch it or I'll get Toad Joe
after you. He'll sue you for sure.

> > Physicists know this as FACT, yet PERSIST in proposing "big bang"
> > theories (new ones every few years). In other words, THERE IS
> > NO PROOF OF ANY UNIVERSE EVER FORMING WITHOUT A CREATOR.

> > So here Catapilla stands, accepting that "poof the universe
> > just exists one day" and then billions of years later we
> > EVOLVED into the humans ect...

> Of course not, one "day" a creator poofed out of nowhere,
> how silly of us.

Been over this before, God has always been there. Scientists
daily assume the speed of light as having always existed and
always will exist. God's time frame of existence is just as
plausable as that for the speed of light (especially since
he said he created light).

> > Well, we have cars here too and factories putting out cars
> > yet they hang on the same "poof, the universe just exists
> > one day". It's just as rediculious to think the car evolved
> > as it is to think we did since both derive from a FALSE premise.

> > The only one ever to stand up and admit he created it all
> > has been God and he gave proof of his existance again and
> > again. See Eze 37 and Jerimiah 16:14,15.

> That's a load of nice swill but you didn't answer Wen-King's question:

> Why is that relevant? Cars and roads don't reproduce on their own, so
> they obviously couldn't have evolved on their own. What is your point?

The point was simple, if I assume the "non God" position, I
have no basis for anything existing whether it be cars or man.
This, regardless of whether or not the stuff discussed is self
reproducing, SINCE NO BIG BANG EVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED, NO
MASS BUILDS UP. No universe, no evolution, no stuff to discuss.

If I assume the "God exists" position, I have proof all things
could have formed since God said he created all matter and all
scientific evidence shows NO MATTER FORMS IN THE VOID OF A VACUUM.
Since God said he created it all, the matter can then exist
regardless of the vacuum NOT being able to form matter.

[John P. Boatwright]

Scal...@concentric.net wrote:

> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

> >Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
> >that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
> >in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
> >scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
> >FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. ....

> Excuse me, but there has been found evidence of the big bang. Why do
> you think projects like the Hubble telescope even exist? (this is
> only 1 reason) I'm no physicist, but I know that evidence has been
> found in the form of background radiation and the expansion of the
> universe. Go to the appropriate website to get the details. You act
> as if physicists continually make things up and dawdle over them
> without any attempt at proof.

Ah, another guy got suckered with the "big bang". Yes! There
is evidence of the universe expanding. I'm not talking about
AFTER the big bang. I'm talking about BEFORE the big bang.

YOU KNOW, THE TIME PHYSICISTS DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT...

So here we are BEFORE the big bang, we have only two options:

1. Pure vacuum, 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy at any
frequency, no initial matter, time passes waiting for
something to happen. Woops! NOTHING HAPPENS. Physicists
admit (privately) that this is a ZERO state, hopelessly
void of any further advancement.

OK, we've got to get around this, but how???? Hmmm....
Well ... then just SOMETHING HAPPENED! Let's just
say we don't know and don't care what that something is.
Then lets just build a pile of theories and present them
to all the population, get university bonuses, and
write a few million books about it. Ya!!! That's cool.

NOTE: We've been very SLACK about not defining what that
little SOMETHING that HAPPENED was. In fact, by all
accounts its against all known laws of science and
can't possibly exist EVER. So is it a LIE, or a GUESS,
or an OMISSION of the truth? Is it university SPAM
to keep the funding coming in?

(or)

2. God said he created the universe and everything around you.
What you see is it. He's always existed and always will
exist.

Now you might say both #1 and #2 show hints of magic,
Both would have to be supernatural events, but in the case
of #2, God is claiming he created the universe.

There is NO EVIDENCE to back up #1, there NEVER has been.
Remember physicists DON'T want to discuss the time BEFORE
the "big bang" because of its hopeless ZERO state.

There is EVIDENCE to back up #2. God gave proof of his
existance in Eze 37, with matching verses Jer 16:14,15
and Isaiah also described this. For a simple walk through:

http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god article on "Proof
of God". Also see the images from Hubble predicted in
the bible. The verses matching are in the text.

[John P. Boatwright]

Elmer Bataitis wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> > Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and
> > that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
> > in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
> > scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
> > FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE. ....

> You, of course, have a simple explanation for galactic red shift and the
> cosmic microwave background radiation, don't you?

You've missed the point, I'm talking about BEFORE the big bang.
You know, you build theories based on PRIOR events. You don't
just stop all theories "prior to when the big bang starts".

> > The proof would be seen as matter
> > forming continiously over time in a vacuum at 0 deg K, no
> > external energy input, 0 Torr, ect...

> > Well, the mass that shows up
> > after ANY length of time in the vacuum is:

> > ---- ZERO ----

> Wrong.

Nah, you didn't read the paper or the problem definition.

10 cubic cm voluum, 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external
mass or energy (at any frequency), 1 year time
elapsing. How much matter and energy is left in
the 10 cubic cm volume after 1 year?

ZERO.

> ---- NON ZERO ----

> Please read:

> "DEMONSTRATION OF THE CASIMIR FORCE IN THE 0.6 TO 6 MU-M RANGE" by

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ooops injecting external energy and mass, they also weren't at
0 deg K either. Well, you aren't up on what your reading so I'll
let it go this time.

Look, if you can guess really, really imaginatively, you'll
get a PHD in physics. (I've guessed myself into one just
recently, so I know most others can do it too.)

> Lamoreaux, S.K.

> Los Alamos Natl Lab,Neutron Sci & Technol Div

> PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS v78 (1) : pp5-8 (1997 Jan 6)
>
> Abstract:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The vacuum stress between closely spaced conducting surfaces, due to

"vacuum stress" promotes matter formation??? This is laughable.

> the
> modification of the zero-point fluctuations of the electromagnetic
> field, has
> been conclusively demonstrated.

Ah, random noise from the "non" 0 DEG K setup.

> The measurement employed an
> electromechanical
> system based on a torsion pendulum.

Was this pendulum in deep space? Any magnets near by?
Sheeze, it gets funnier as you get into it. So now we expect
mechanical torsion pendulums occuring in deep space prior
to matter formation? Bull! This is stupidity!

> Agreement with theory at the level
> of 5%
> is obtained.

What theory? That if you inject matter and energy into a system
you'll see effects of matter and energy in the system???

This is a very funny joke, please post another.

> ================================================================================

>
> This paper demonstrates the model of a *vacuum* as having dynamic
> properties of its own. Therefore, the idea that matter may spontaneously
> form *in a vacuum* is a distinct possibility.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, more guessing needed eh? When will the final guess arrive?

Hmm... like a dead car battery just charges itself and has
been proven by adding external energy and mechanical pendulums
at above 0 deg K temperatures. This is rediculious too and
you'd probably believe it if someone wrote a paper on it.

Yep, same old perpetual motion machine garbage (sure it works
but we have to add just a touch of energy to get it started
then it goes and goes.... uh.. and we can measure the very
small amount of residual left over energy too, except lets
just replace this battery here, ya, see there it goes now).

Cut the crap, NO EXTERNAL ENERGY (at any frequency), 0 DEG K,
0 TORR VACUUM, NO EXTERNAL MASS, 10 cubic cm volume, 1 year
time elapsing. How much mass and energy appears? ZERO.

You guys would soak up anything if it kept you from God,
absolutely astounding.

[John P. Boatwright]

Daniel Sevo wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Actually, God's results have been published world wide. He made
> > every single atom you'll ever find, and every other one that
> > you'll NEVER find. There are many, many web pages highlighting
> > the works of God, and the bible has been published world wide.

> > Take a look at http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god

> > Note in the Jesus and Peter image from Hubble Space Telescope

> > that even the green arc was described by the bible.

> > The stuff God predicts just keeps coming true. Evolution doesn't

> > stand a chance against God. You will see soon.

> Forget God, forget evolution etc.etc...

Not a chance, easily ect.etc...

> I have a new 'theory'. Actually, it's no theory but rather the truth
> about our universe.

Does it involve loggers, the Dairy Queen, and blown up dolls?
I think we've seen this one before. I will report this to
your ISP as needless SPAM.

> There is a super intelligence out there, it's called 'GurgelGnutte'.

No I think they were calling it Proteus or Pro-mess or something.

> It exist's in non-linear time and it created itself just as it created
> our universe! Well, it did not 'create' mankind but merely the
> conditions which mankind is a consequence of. It doesn't care the
> slightest about us, (which would explain why it doesn't help to pray)
> we're only one of about a trillion of intelligent lifeforms in the
> universe.

I'm sure Sagan is flattered you saw his re-runs. Do you shave with
your fingernails?

> Because GurgelGnutte exists in non lineaer time it doesn't bother making
> predictions about the future (since the future is a consequence of
> linear-time and only relevant to us who live in it).

You've been sleeping through Star Trek, try napping after the show.

> The reason I know all this though, is that he contacted me and let me
> know... I guess it picked me out to tell the world how it REALLY is...

It was probably a misread perscription or an overdose.
Sue your doctor, see Toad Joe for details.

> Now, can anyone come and tell me my 'theory' does not go along with
> the observed facts...

1. You haven't presented ANY evidence.
2. God did give evidence.
3. You ignore evidence (typical atheist).

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <332238...@wam.umd.edu> Jim Jarrell <jim...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>How do you as an atheist posit such things as laws of science? If your
>world view were true science would be impossible. To you a law is an

Why?

And why do so many theists say things like "If your world view were true
then...." when they neither realise that our world view is the same as
their apart from not having any god or gods to believe in, nor that they
have yet to show any connection between the two.

It's as silly as asking "If Apollo's golden charion doesn't pull the sun
across the sky then whose does?". The presumptions are so wrong it's
difficult to know where to start.

It's also offensive because it presupposes that our "world view"
(whatever that is) is wrong. If you wouldn't open a conversation with a
stranger on the street with an insult, why do it on the net?

>observed occurence, it has to do with probability. But this is to beg

No. It describes how we understand an observed occurrence. But it doesn't
get to be a law unless it is falsifiable and unless the predictions it
makes have been confirmed.

>the question. How do you know that the future will be like the past,
>what is your justification?

A lifetime of experience that it has been.

It must be hard for you to get out of bed every morning without worrying
you'll fall up and hit your head on the ceiling.

>By the way, most of Frued's theories have been discarded by modern
>psychology.

So what?

[Scal...@concentric.net]

On Sun, 09 Mar 1997 02:58:00 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

>Ah, another guy got suckered with the "big bang". Yes! There
>is evidence of the universe expanding. I'm not talking about

>AFTER the big bang. I'm talking about BEFORE the big bang.

>
>YOU KNOW, THE TIME PHYSICISTS DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT...
>
>So here we are BEFORE the big bang, we have only two options:
>
>1. Pure vacuum, 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy at any
> frequency, no initial matter, time passes waiting for
> something to happen. Woops! NOTHING HAPPENS. Physicists
> admit (privately) that this is a ZERO state, hopelessly
> void of any further advancement.
>

Where do you find this crap???

>2. God said he created the universe and everything around you.
> What you see is it. He's always existed and always will
> exist.
>
>Now you might say both #1 and #2 show hints of magic,
>Both would have to be supernatural events, but in the case
>of #2, God is claiming he created the universe.
>
>There is NO EVIDENCE to back up #1, there NEVER has been.
>Remember physicists DON'T want to discuss the time BEFORE
>the "big bang" because of its hopeless ZERO state.
>
>There is EVIDENCE to back up #2. God gave proof of his
>existance in Eze 37, with matching verses Jer 16:14,15
>and Isaiah also described this. For a simple walk through:
>

Copping out to God isn't going to explain anything, and even less it
using the Bible to justify it. The Bible is a text of half-truths and
distorted facts, many of which have been edited over time. Even if
none of the big bang theory were even remotely true, Biblical account
is certainly too bogus to merit any claim to the real universe.

[Capella]

John, tell us some more about what a great BIG BOOK physicist you will be
someday and how you will be changing the laws of physics will-nilly.

Tell us again about Stephen Hawking's latest guess or how his theory of the
beginning of the universe is "magic" because he doesn't think a god poofed
out of nowhere and spoke it into existence.

Tell us again how the layout of the planets in our solar system "proves" God.

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

[Wen-King Su]

In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:

:
;Wen-King Su wrote:
:
;> What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no

:> external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
;> nothing?

:
;What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?
:
;Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.
:
;Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
:is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

Hmm. What are you talking about? What does any of that has to do with
whether the universe was ever nothing? I wasn't asking whether there
was any place any time in the unverse there was a spot containing nothing.

:> The Big Bang theory, which you appears to be referring to,

;> postulates that the universe was once a singularity, which is not nothing.

:
;No it postulates MAGIC since the following is implied:
:
; NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
: NOTHING >> MAGIC >> UNIVERSE
;
:See the similarity??? Ya, truth hurts.
:God already said he created everthing.

But that is what I am asking, who says there was "NOTHING" at the
begining of all that?

:> It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big

;> Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
:> there was a time dimension before that.

;
:See, total guessing and assuming a FALSE INTIAL STATE. No big
;deal, but don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to believe it.

That is only an extrapolation of what is observed today. Nobody has to
believes it as it is just a theory.

;NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
:are the NOTHING parts.
;
:God created it all.

What are the implications of the theory that it was God who created it all?
Does it make any differences at all? Name one thing that you know to be true
that others who does not assume God don't know to be true. If you can't,
then isn't your position identical to you not knowing if God indeed has
created it all?

[Elmer Bataitis]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

> Ah, another guy got suckered with the "big bang". Yes! There
> is evidence of the universe expanding. I'm not talking about
> AFTER the big bang. I'm talking about BEFORE the big bang.

> =

> YOU KNOW, THE TIME PHYSICISTS DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT...

> =

> So here we are BEFORE the big bang, we have only two options:

> =

> 1. Pure vacuum, 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy at any
> frequency, no initial matter, time passes waiting for
> something to happen. Woops! NOTHING HAPPENS. Physicists
> admit (privately) that this is a ZERO state, hopelessly
> void of any further advancement.

=46rom the Skypub website:

"Sky & Telescope" February 1996 - Vol. 91, No. 2

"Space-time: The Final Frontier" By Sten Odenwald.Empty space is not
really empty. A total vacuum is a hive of microscopic activity that may
hold the keys to why the Big Bang happened and why elementary particles
have the properties they do.
=

[wf...@enter.net]

On Sat, 08 Mar 1997 12:48:09 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

>Wen-King Su wrote:
>Whoa slow down... Catapilla insists that Sagan was right and

>that the universe just exploded into existance at some point
>in time billions of years ago. He takes this on "faith" that
>scientists have evidence to back this up. THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE
>FOR THIS. ZIP. NONE.

gee whiz i wonder what the cosmic background explorer satellite saw.
ive been to holmdel, NJ and have seen the horn antenna used by penzias
and wilson to discover the microwave background radiation. what this
guy is saying is a load of pure midwestern pigwash. he dont know no
science so he figgers he'll make it up. dont work that way, pal.

[Elmer Bataitis]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

> Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

No wonder we don't see the sun during the day or stars at night. We're
all in the dark ;-)

> God created it all.

I agree with this statement. But you have to understand the evidence
that god left in so creating. If you say a book tells you what god
*really* did, then we have to look at whether or not that book is
trustworthy. Now which book? Dianetics, Vedas, Bible, Koran or any of
many others? How do we select the most reliable? If it trivially
contradicts easily observable reality, do we discard it from
consideration?

[John P. Boatwright]

Capella wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Capella wrote:

> > > John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > > > Capella wrote:

> > > > We were all designed and built, given free will to do as we
> > > > please, and free will to accept or reject God. I accept him.

> > > OK, B*ttwipe, who designed your god? Hmmmm?.... I didn't think so.

> > You of all people know (Hmm... you could debate yourself for
> > hours ... seven years of preaching, a few as an atheist, you're
> > peaking now ...). God said he's always been and always will be.

> I've been an Atheist for almost 20 years now, thank you. I've tried
> both and science and reality are infinitely preferable to closing
> eyes, plugging ears and believing in an imaginary father figure,
> just because it is psychologically desirable.

God is pretty big, I guess, you'll keep closing your eyes,
plugging your ears, and believing in Steven Hawking, just
because it's your fantasy with no evidence to support it.

> > All of science accepts the limit of the speed of light, to them
> > it's easy to accept the speed of light "always has " and
> > "always will" existing.

> > What's the problem with God existing within the same time frame?

> Wrong, scientists say that the light speed applies to this universe, they
> do *not* say that the physical laws of the universe are infinite in
> time, time began when the universe started expanding, therefore nothing
> can be infinite in time in both directions.

What a crock. Have ONE of those scientists actually measured
the speed of light in any other universe????

(If you don't stop, I swear I'll die laughing)

You guys. Heck I'm gonna become a BIG BOOK physicist here
some day. You'll be spouting MY garbage soon. I'll be
changing laws willy-nilly, WEEKLY. You'll keep track though.

JOHN SAY'S -- THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS -14, UH, OVER THERE....

And you'll just go around telling everybody on alt.atheism.

Catapilla, this is too funny.

Think (just once) you can't measure the speed of light anywhere
but in our universe. After the light has gotten to us, it's
travelling at the speed of light in our universe. There is
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO VERIFY ANY SPEED OF LIGHT CHANGE, EVER.

Stupidity - 8
Guessing - 15 ... ya ... ya, it says 15, wow!
Foolishness - Well Bob, we gave it a 4. He is Steven Hawking.

> > > Oh, I get it. Science does all these wonderful things for us through
> > > their very accurate method of discerning the universe (the scientific method),
> > > that works great for atomic energy, medical science, space travel, chemistry,
> > > computers, etc... but they are "guessing" when it comes to your particular god.

> > Sagan GUESSED and look what it got him. NOTHING. The proof was actually
> > right there, he was staring at it all along... TOO FUNNY!!! I'm sorry
> > I'm all choked up right now, it's just too soon to discuss this....

> > What the heck http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god actual things
> > Sagan was viewing and didn't have a clue as to them answering
> > his guestions about God. The poor guy!

> > Please, I, I have to have a moment to regain my composure.

> Another nice piece of swill to try to deflect the question, but why is science such
> a good method for determining everything else in the universe except where it points
> out the ridiculousness of the Bible and religion?

Science does not disprove God. That's the whole point. But pulling
out the latest GUESS from Steven Hawking and then saying God is
unnecessary, is just so much trash.

> > > > > Religion is not for accurately and open mindedly, discerning the universe,
> > > > > it is a vehical for meeting personal psychological needs apart from what
> > > > > reality is.

> > > > I don't know about religion, but God's word in the bible is completely
> > > > acceptable. But for all those who leap to the GUESS that we randomly
> > > > evolved from chemical mush, from a planet where NO OTHERS have
> > > > acceptable

> > > Believing a book of mythology, with hundreds of errors and contradictions,
> > > obviously biased to stroke people's psychological needs isn't a leap?

> > I've seen your posts, people have been showing error after error
> > in your presentation. I do admit though, you were led off track
> > quite well. Probably some joker wrote a book about doubting God
> > and you bought it, it convinced you, and now you copy it to the
> > newsgroups. But they just keep knocking holes in every post.
> > Maybe someday you'll see the error.

> You don't know me at all, the fact that we Atheists shoot your Bible
> and beliefs down in flames daily really makes you uncomfortable in your
> beliefs doesn't it? It did me, I wish I would have had this information
> earlier in my Christian days, I wouldn't have waisted so much time.

You must have been poorly prepared. Too bad. Don't take it
personally, but your absolutely wrong. God exists, you blew it.

You'll see, Israel surrounded by armies ready to battle.

> > > > conditions for life (they're ABSOLUTELY LETHAL TO LIFE),

> > > Not primordial life. Primordial life different, it different John.

> > Nah, Venus +900 degrees??? Nope, no life there. Mars with crater
> > after crater, piles of them, and nothing but bolders, and pebbles.
> > Sure, Goe would give anything to live there, and I'd do everything
> > in my power to help him on his way. But the fact remains, the
> > planets other than Earth are worthless for life. An easy indicator
> > that God made it all, since no other planets support life and
> > there's several others there to start up life on. What happened
> > to wreck their life generating processes??? Didn't all the
> > planets show up in a similar fashion???

> I don't have time to waist telling you about the position of the planets
> in relation to the Sun, their mass and their ability to hold on to particular
> atmospheres, etc... This had to do with probabilities in the formation of the
> solar system, there are almost certainly many, many planets around other stars
> that can support intelligent (and fundamentalist) life.

Don't worry about it, I've seen some of the stuff too. But for me
it just indicates CLEARLY that God set it up. Just look:

Diameter surface temp dist to sun
-----------------------------------------------------
Venus 12.6 km 900 deg 108 e 6 km
Earth 12.8 km 70 deg 149 e 6 km
Mars 6.9 km 20 deg 228 e 6 km

The explaination for the extreme heat is that Venus has a
higher atmospheric pressure. Why did the earth luck out?

Both Earth and Venus are pretty much the same "rock"
at about the same distance, yet Venus becomes incompatible
with life.

As for mars, it has 0.4 times the gravity of earth and
yet the atmosphere remained intact to keep the surface
temp up. Why?

So lets just imagine Mars being 2X bigger to get back
on track with both Venus's and Earth's diameter.
Thus Mars should have much more atmospheric pressure
and a much higher temperature. Maybe Mars would jump
to about 200 deg surface temp with its new size.

Now just a quick average, we get (900+200)/2 = 550 deg

The EARTH SURFACE TEMPERATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 550 deg
for an adjusted Mars diameter and atmosphere. Don't you
see, all three planets are supposidly from the same
stellar gas formation procedure, yet Earth absolutely
lucks out for life formation. Why????

Obviously God did it.

Don't you think about this stuff?

> > Just look at those planets. They are right there fully described
> > on the net. NOT A SINGLE CHANCE OF LIFE, let alone the complex
> > male/female/child human being life. Those rocks (planets) are
> > fully DEAD.

> There could have been microbe life on Mars. You don't know anything about
> any science you talk about do you?

I saw the NASA press conference, did you miss it???? From my
recollection, more than 1/2 the pannel said they thought the
"rock of life" was a farse and had no thought about it
indicating any life on Mars.

NASA was hyping people for bucks. Though I personally
agree they should be funded regardless and shouldn't have
to provide hyped up data. The stuff they do has always
been important and doesn't disprove God at all.

> > More evidence from God that he did it all, not evolution.

> > > > from a universe
> > > > that could never have happened (matter is NEVER created in the void of
> > > > a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy).

> > > No, just omniscient, omnipotent supreme beings poof out of nowhere,
> > > what where we thinking?!?...

> > You mean "when" were we thinking. TIP: Just ask any old physicist you
> > like, matter never forms in a vacuum at 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external
> > energy, ect... It's a foregone conclusion that they built their
> > castle out of sand. You believed it. And you had the truth once,
> > but dumped it for some goofup's guess as to how the universe formed.

> > Get the picture: NOT ONE PHYSICIST HAS YET STOPPED ME FROM SAYING
> > THIS OR EVEN HINTED THERE WOULD BE ANY ERROR IN THE MASS FORMING
> > IN A VACUUM PROBLEM. 2 top physicists have inquired "hey what's
> > the physics problem, maybe I can answer it". Duh, they never return.

> > Castles built out of sand.

> > Or in your previous bible knowledge days, "the guy who built
> > his house on sand and the rains came and washed it all away".

> > God built it all.

> Let's see, physicist know that we have no evidence from before the
> big bang and can't comment anywhere they don't have evidence so they
> courageously choose to remain silent on the issue.

But they didn't, Steven Hawking jumped ship and starts telling
everyone

NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

Pretty funny. I'd just simplify it to:

NOTHING >> MAGIC >> UNIVERSE

OR, admit God did it all. Ya, that's it.

> You instead have to conjure up a god out of nowhere to explain it.

He announced himself way before I was born.

> Just like primitive people who not knowing what the Sun really was
> decided to worship it as a god.

You remember, God doesn't like sun worship.

> To them lack of knowledge equaled god.

> Same with you.

You wish. Kind of like Mr. Hawking, wishing things into existance.

> > > > Well it's just my
> > > > opinion -- you are wrong. Ye shalt see.

> > > I *shalt* see?

> > Yes, ye shalt see.

> > > Thou are wrong oh B*ttwipe, thou and thine company ofs believers ofs imaginary
> > > godths. :-)

> > I wish I could talk like that. But then you are the SEVEN YEAR BIBLE
> > THUMPER aren't you...

> Keep practicing, your getting there! :-)

Thou art wrong ... uh ... Catapillith.

[John P. Boatwright]

Wen-King Su wrote:

> What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> nothing?

What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?

Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.

Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy

is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

> The Big Bang theory, which you appears to be referring to,

> postulates that the universe was once a singularity, which is not nothing.

No it postulates MAGIC since the following is implied:

NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
NOTHING >> MAGIC >> UNIVERSE

See the similarity??? Ya, truth hurts.

God already said he created everthing.

> It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big

> Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
> there was a time dimension before that.

See, total guessing and assuming a FALSE INTIAL STATE. No big
deal, but don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to believe it.

NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"

[John P. Boatwright]

Peter Kirby wrote:

> Jim Jarrell wrote:

> > By the way, most of Frued's theories have been discarded by modern
> > psychology.

> Who cares?

> Cheers,
> Peter

That's pretty sad, Frued ran off without telling Peter.

Well at least we can all fall back on God's word.

Thank you Jesus.

[Lloyd Zusman]

On Sun, 09 Mar 1997 02:29:49 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com>
wrote:

> Capella wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> > >
>

> > > [ ... ]

>
> > John are you lying or just ignorant?
>
> Just the ABSENCE of FACTS. Ask any physicist.
>
> > The astronomers have been recording red shifts in galaxies for 60 years now
> > indicating that they are all flying apart, they have measure the cosmic background
> > radiation and it has a frequency distribution that perfectly matches what is
> > expected leftover from the big bang, Einstein's relativy predicts it, etc....
>
> No kidding, I know this. But the unanswered question is
>
> WHERE'S THE INITIAL MATTER COME FROM????
>
> Sure the universe is expanding, BIG DEAL, God made it that way.
>
> Oh, sorry (forgot alt.atheism):
>
> "POOOF! INSTANT UNIVERSE" -- Carl Sagan RIP
>
> or is it...
>
> "POOOF! INSTANT UNIVERSE" -- Steven Hawking
>
>
> or is it...
>
> "POOOF! INSTANT MAGIC" -- ect...
>
> Big deal, guessing about stuff all day long and getting
> nowhere. So what, their "POOOF! INSTANT UNIVERSE" has no
> predictions fulfilled over centuries and gives no advantage
> PERIOD. They also give NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE at all to back
> up the "pooof" part.

You are absolutely right: no physicist knows for sure where this
initial "POOOF" may have originated, and this "POOOF" itself is
postulated (i.e., not proven). However, there is a lot of physical
evidence, correlated from several different lines of inquiry, for many
of the things that allegedly took place after this initial "POOOF"
took place.

There is no consistent physical evidence that things occurred as
described in Genesis, however. Furthermore, the physical evidence
contradicts the age of the earth as calculated from the Bible.

Now, it may be that God did the initial "POOOF" of the Big Bang. But
if so, Genesis is incorrect, since it describes things that occurred
in ways that are different from what is shown by the physical evidence
that God also created.

> [ ... ]

>
> Been over this before, God has always been there. Scientists
> daily assume the speed of light as having always existed and
> always will exist. God's time frame of existence is just as
> plausable as that for the speed of light (especially since
> he said he created light).

Sure ... it's not categorically impossible that the speed of light may
have changed. However, there is no evidence for this. You can
postulate anything you want, but unless there is some evidence,
there is no reason to accept your postulate.

I know people who postulate that the Bible is actually just a
non-God-inspired book of myths, legends, tribal history, and codes of
conduct. There are people who postulate that the Qur'an is the true
word of God, not the Bible. There are poeple who postulate that 75
million years ago some beings seeded the ice on the earth with the
"souls" that now inhabit our bodies. Does the fact that these things
were postulated make any of them more or less true than your postulate
about the speed of light?

> [ ... ]

>
> The point was simple, if I assume the "non God" position, I
> have no basis for anything existing whether it be cars or man.
> This, regardless of whether or not the stuff discussed is self
> reproducing, SINCE NO BIG BANG EVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED, NO
> MASS BUILDS UP. No universe, no evolution, no stuff to discuss.
>
> If I assume the "God exists" position, I have proof all things
> could have formed since God said he created all matter and all
> scientific evidence shows NO MATTER FORMS IN THE VOID OF A VACUUM.
> Since God said he created it all, the matter can then exist
> regardless of the vacuum NOT being able to form matter.

What you call "proof" is not proof. You have an *assertion* (in the
Bible) that God created all matter, but no proof.

Look ... apply your own logic: you say that the initial "POOOF" had to
come from somewhere ... that the chain of events had to have a cause.
Fine. That makes sense. Now, show us a chain of events that proves
that the Bible is the actual inspired word of God and not just some
book of myths. You cannot prove this, any more than someone can prove
anything about that "POOOF".

But at least today's scientific theories are a lot more consistent
with the evidence that God left lying around than is the Bible's
version of creation. The Bible's version is very inconsistent with
observations.

Furthermore, all your position asserts is that there is *some* form of
"Creator". You have no knowledge that this creator is anything like
God in the Bible, except from the Bible itself. There could have been
more than one creator. The Creator could have been so alien to human
experience that we cannot even begin to conceive of what
he/she/it/them/whatever may be like.

--
Lloyd Zusman 01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
l...@asfast.com ^ Indent or be indented.

[Lloyd Zusman]

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 05:04:50 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com>
wrote:

> Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> > nothing?
>
> What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?
>
> Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.
>
> Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.
>
> > The Big Bang theory, which you appears to be referring to,
> > postulates that the universe was once a singularity, which is not nothing.
>
> No it postulates MAGIC since the following is implied:
>
> NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
> NOTHING >> MAGIC >> UNIVERSE

Well, the "Big Bang" theory does NOT state

NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

*You* are the one who are injecting this mythical "NOTHING" at the
start of the chain. What the "Big Bang" theory *does* state is this:

WE DON'T KNOW >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

By *you* inserting your mythical "NOTHING", you are creating a straw
man.

Many people who accept the validity of the "Big Bang" actually do
believe that it is God who created the singularity. Many of these
people, however, do not believe that God is exactly as described in
the Bible, since some of the things that are stated in the Bible are
contradicted by observed physical evidence. These people contend that
the Bible is a good approximation of God's nature, but that there are
things in the Bible that are incorrect.

If you believe that God did the "Big Bang" and then everything happened
pretty much the way that today's physicists are stating, then you are
in good company with many scientists.

> See the similarity??? Ya, truth hurts.
>
> God already said he created everthing.
>
> > It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big
> > Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
> > there was a time dimension before that.
>
> See, total guessing and assuming a FALSE INTIAL STATE. No big
> deal, but don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to believe it.

No ... there is no assumption about an initial state at all. The only
thing said about what happened before the singularity is "We don't
know".

> NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> are the NOTHING parts.
>
> God created it all.

I am in agreement with you that God created all. I am in disagreement
with what appear to me to be your slightly dishonest methods of
argument, however. You have inserted a "NOTHING" prior to the
"SINGULARITY", and this "NOTHING" is not part of any "Big Bang"
theory. You then use *YOUR* inserted "NOTHING" to try to invalidate
this theory. In other words, you invalidly alter the theory into
something different than the way it is stated by its proponents, and
then you discredit *your* invalid version of this theory.

You do not need to dishonor God by engaging in dishonest arguments in
favor of His existence. Fallacious arguments like these are doing God
a great disservice by driving intelligent, clear-thinking people away
from Him.

And where did "evolution" come from? Is this another straw man?
There is *NOTHING* in any "Big Bang" theory that says anything about
evolution.

Here's a better question to consider, in my opinion:

Do you believe that the following theory is valid or not? ...

GOD >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

In other words, can you accept the possibility that God created the
universe via a big-bang-like event 10-20 billion years ago and then
caused things to happen in such a way that we ended up being here
on this planet as we are today? Or do you believe that God created
the universe exactly as described in Genesis? Or what?

[Daneel]

In article <332396...@teleport.com>,

sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> > nothing?
>
> What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?

Your lack of phantasy is your fault, not a law of the universe.

> Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.
>
> Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

And the moral of this story?

> > The Big Bang theory, which you appears to be referring to,
> > postulates that the universe was once a singularity, which is not nothing.
>
> No it postulates MAGIC since the following is implied:
>
> NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
> NOTHING >> MAGIC >> UNIVERSE
>

> See the similarity??? Ya, truth hurts.

Ya, blindness and ignorance hurts.
General Relativity (Einstein) says on Big Bang:

SINGULARITY >> NONSINGULAR UNIVERSE;

Here, singularity is the starting point. That is, the beginning of
time itself. To ask "what was before it" is meaningless just as asking
what's below absolute zero temperature.

But since General Relativity is until now not united with quantum
mechanics; it can be applied with full trust only back until gravity
behaves quanted (until 10^-48 sec after Big Bang in the classical
General Relativity scenario); so what current science says is the
following:

WE DON'T KNOW (MAYBE SINGULARITY) >> BIG BANG >> NORMAL UNIVERSE

BTW; modern physics showed with the so-called 'group theory' that
matter-energy conservation is a consequence of a specific spacetime
geometry; and it doesn't work with expansion as supported by G.R.

> God already said he created everthing.

God said nothing; the Bible declared it. And you have chosen to
believe it.
BTW; if God is omnipotent, He is independent of time; so when He
created everything, He created in four dimensions- spacetime.

> > It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big
> > Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
> > there was a time dimension before that.

(This poster didn't see the essence of it: 'before' is meaningless
for singularity; that's it.)

> See, total guessing and assuming a FALSE INTIAL STATE. No big
> deal, but don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to believe it.

No one excepts anyone to believe anything. Sciencists debate it.
But they understand it, in contradiction to you. And; what's this
FALSE INITIAL STATE thing????

> NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> are the NOTHING parts.

No NOTHING nowhere.

> God created it all.

In spacetime...God created the Big Bang and evolution...

Bye

Daneel (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
||
\ || /
\ || /
\ || / ...and there were no dinosaurs.
^^^^^^^~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^
Nature is so complex - some of its parts will not even grasp it.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Wen-King Su]

In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:

;Grow up Lloyd, NO ONE has stated ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE SINGULARITY.
:In other words NOTHING is used as a platform to start up from.
;It's a farse.

How is saying nothing about there being anything prior to singularity
equvilant to saying there is nothing prior to singularity?

;> WE DON'T KNOW >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
:
;See, guessing. PHD PHYSICISTS GUESS. Now, do I have to drop
:God for a GUESS. No. I can ignore ignorance and stay with God.

Since you have yet to show you can tell apart God and a powerful deceiver,
isn't your belief in God just a guess? Why do you ignore the possibility
that God might be someone else, and that the one you believe to be God
is not God but a powerful deceiver in disguise?

[Christopher Hemme]

In talk.origins John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

->Actually, God's results have been published world wide. He made
->every single atom you'll ever find, and every other one that
->you'll NEVER find. There are many, many web pages highlighting
->the works of God, and the bible has been published world wide.

But no one has been able to reproduce his work, which means that
he's a crackpot :)

[John P. Boatwright]

Lloyd Zusman wrote:

> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

> > Wen-King Su wrote:

> > > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> > > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> > > nothing?

> > What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?

> > Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.

> > Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> > is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

> > > The Big Bang theory, which you appears to be referring to,

> > > postulates that the universe was once a singularity, which is not nothing.

> > No it postulates MAGIC since the following is implied:

> > NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
> > NOTHING >> MAGIC >> UNIVERSE

> Well, the "Big Bang" theory does NOT state

> NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

Well, that's all I've recieved for an answer so far. Duh!

> *You* are the one who are injecting this mythical "NOTHING" at the
> start of the chain. What the "Big Bang" theory *does* state is this:

Grow up Lloyd, NO ONE has stated ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE SINGULARITY.

In other words NOTHING is used as a platform to start up from.
It's a farse.

> WE DON'T KNOW >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

See, guessing. PHD PHYSICISTS GUESS. Now, do I have to drop
God for a GUESS. No. I can ignore ignorance and stay with God.

> By *you* inserting your mythical "NOTHING", you are creating a straw
> man.

I asked "politely" for ANYTHING other than a "we don't know" and
got "nothing" back. In simple terms, hey John:

DROP GOD for WE DON'T KNOW

effectively becomes

DROP GOD for NOTHING

Get it??? I do know God created the universe, so I'm fine as is.

> Many people who accept the validity of the "Big Bang" actually do
> believe that it is God who created the singularity.

Atheists don't! The previous poster IS an atheist. This whole
post was the atheist saying God doesn't exist BECAUSE:

WE HAVE PROOF GOD ISN'T NEEDED ... blah blah blah

There's no proof in the "big bang" that drops God. Duh!

> Many of these
> people, however, do not believe that God is exactly as described in
> the Bible, since some of the things that are stated in the Bible are
> contradicted by observed physical evidence. These people contend that
> the Bible is a good approximation of God's nature, but that there are
> things in the Bible that are incorrect.

So they have their stumbling blocks, life goes on ...

> If you believe that God did the "Big Bang" and then everything happened
> pretty much the way that today's physicists are stating, then you are
> in good company with many scientists.

Exactly.

> > See the similarity??? Ya, truth hurts.

> > God already said he created everthing.

> > > It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big

> > > Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
> > > there was a time dimension before that.

> > See, total guessing and assuming a FALSE INTIAL STATE. No big

> > deal, but don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to believe it.

> No ... there is no assumption about an initial state at all. The only
> thing said about what happened before the singularity is "We don't
> know".

Yes we do, God did it! Are you an atheist again? Just sentences
ago you weren't. Hmm...

Sheeze, I'm stating here and now, God has been proven by the
"big bang". The initial state gives the game to God, no way out.

> > NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> > are the NOTHING parts.

> > God created it all.

> I am in agreement with you that God created all.

Ok, your not an atheist.

> I am in disagreement
> with what appear to me to be your slightly dishonest methods of
> argument, however.

I've repeated exactly what science gave out as evidence to delete
God with:

NOTHING

The big bang does not delete God, it shows he did it.

> You have inserted a "NOTHING" prior to the
> "SINGULARITY", and this "NOTHING" is not part of any "Big Bang"
> theory.

Bull, it's exactly what scientist's replaced God with, see watch:

Bible -- God >> creation >> universe

Physics -- nothing >> singularity >> universe

Atheist -- nothing >> magic >> universe

> You then use *YOUR* inserted "NOTHING" to try to invalidate
> this theory.

It's invalid due to it's inability to match reality. The
reality is God created the universe.

> In other words, you invalidly alter the theory into
> something different than the way it is stated by its proponents, and
> then you discredit *your* invalid version of this theory.

Lloyd, I have lots of wire here and lots of light bulbs,
neither creates energy or mass. Yet physicists come up
with "just give me 1e-43 seconds and I'll make astronomical
amounts of energy and matter". I'm laughing....

Thats identical to saying "by a total fluke (singularity),
and just 1e-43 seconds, my 1 foot length of #22 wire exploded
into the size of a universe". See how rediculious it is?

It doesn't happen, unless God does it.

> You do not need to dishonor God by engaging in dishonest arguments in
> favor of His existence. Fallacious arguments like these are doing God
> a great disservice by driving intelligent, clear-thinking people away
> from Him.

Again, where's the matter build up, where's all the "little"
singularities??? Why only HUGE singularites???

You're being mislead, ask them to reproduce this singularity.
Do you even know what it means???

Have them show you evidence. What you thought they had some?
There's none. I've asked again and again.

God created it all.

> And where did "evolution" come from? Is this another straw man?
> There is *NOTHING* in any "Big Bang" theory that says anything about
> evolution.

You're a newbie for sure.

> Here's a better question to consider, in my opinion:

> Do you believe that the following theory is valid or not? ...

> GOD >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE

Oh, ok, I typed that above. Yes.

> In other words, can you accept the possibility that God created the
> universe via a big-bang-like event 10-20 billion years ago and then
> caused things to happen in such a way that we ended up being here
> on this planet as we are today? Or do you believe that God created
> the universe exactly as described in Genesis? Or what?

I believe he created the universe. He didn't give ALL the details.

Do you get schematics with your computer? No. Only a simple set
of manuals.

[John P. Boatwright]

Elmer Bataitis wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> > is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

> No wonder we don't see the sun during the day or stars at night. We're
> all in the dark ;-)

Depends on if your blind or not ;-)

> > God created it all.

> I agree with this statement. But you have to understand the evidence
> that god left in so creating. If you say a book tells you what god
> *really* did, then we have to look at whether or not that book is
> trustworthy. Now which book? Dianetics, Vedas, Bible, Koran or any of
> many others? How do we select the most reliable? If it trivially
> contradicts easily observable reality, do we discard it from
> consideration?

Well, 2500 year old prophecies coming true during
this generation does sway me a bit towards the bible.

Select what ever you like. I prefer the bible.

If you see "errors" (stumbling blocks) I guess you'll have
to deal with them.

[John P. Boatwright]

Elmer Bataitis wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Ah, another guy got suckered with the "big bang". Yes! There
> > is evidence of the universe expanding. I'm not talking about
> > AFTER the big bang. I'm talking about BEFORE the big bang.

> > YOU KNOW, THE TIME PHYSICISTS DON'T LIKE TO TALK ABOUT...

> > So here we are BEFORE the big bang, we have only two options:

> > 1. Pure vacuum, 0 deg K, 0 Torr, no external energy at any

> > frequency, no initial matter, time passes waiting for
> > something to happen. Woops! NOTHING HAPPENS. Physicists
> > admit (privately) that this is a ZERO state, hopelessly
> > void of any further advancement.

> From the Skypub website:

> "Sky & Telescope" February 1996 - Vol. 91, No. 2

> "Space-time: The Final Frontier" By Sten Odenwald.Empty space is not
> really empty. A total vacuum is a hive of microscopic activity that may
> hold the keys to why the Big Bang happened and why elementary particles
> have the properties they do.

Uhmm... A peice of #22 copper wire 1 cm long is a hive of microscopic
activity. You'll see random zero point fluctuations in it too.

Which proves, #22 copper wire is the actual cause of the big bang.

[Bill Gibson]

John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > How do we select the most reliable? If it trivially
> > contradicts easily observable reality, do we discard it from
> > consideration?
>
> Well, 2500 year old prophecies coming true during
> this generation does sway me a bit towards the bible.

One example. Come on, I dare you. One example from the bible which has
actually happened in 'this generation'. And 'this bloke caught a rabbit
like it says in Genesis' doesn't count. One prophecy that has come true
to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Bill

------------------------------------------------------
All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
Any unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address
will be subject to an administration fee of 250 Pounds
sterling. E-mailing indicates acceptance of these terms.

[Lloyd Zusman]

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 05:34:41 +0000, John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com>
wrote:
> Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>
> [ ... ]

>
> > Well, the "Big Bang" theory does NOT state
>
> > NOTHING >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
>
> Well, that's all I've recieved for an answer so far. Duh!

Read some books by some of the physicists who actually came up with
the "Big Bang" theory. Either the time prior to the singularity is
not mentioned at all, or else it is explicitly stated that "we don't
know" what happened prior to the singularity, or else other theories
are proposed to deal with the time prior to the signularity. To the
best of my knowledge, and correct me if I am wrong, none of the
physicists who proposed the "Big Bang" theory have ever stated that
"NOTHING" came before it.

Perhaps certain mis-informed people may have made this claim, but few
serious physicists have done so, to the best of my knowledge.

Also ... others in this newsgroup have specifically stated that the
"Big Bang" theory does *not* say that "NOTHING" came prior to the
singularity. In fact, there is one post from as recently as a few
days ago where one of the proponents of the "Big Bang" made this
very claim. You are selectively ignoring those physicists who state
that "We don't know" what happened before the singularity (a majority
of physicists, by the way ... and many of them believe in God), and
you are only paying attention to the position of a minority of people
in the world of physics.

> > *You* are the one who are injecting this mythical "NOTHING" at the
> > start of the chain. What the "Big Bang" theory *does* state is this:
>
> Grow up Lloyd, NO ONE has stated ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE SINGULARITY.
> In other words NOTHING is used as a platform to start up from.
> It's a farse.

Your statement ("NO ONE has stated ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE
SINGULARITY.") is false. I have stated that I believe that God
created the universe, and that He very well could have created the
initial singularity (if indeed there was one ... and if there were
things prior to this initial "POOOF", then I believe that He created
whatever existed prior to it). Other people in this newsgroup have
said the same thing. Other physicists have said so. Even Stephen
Hawkings has been quoted as saying that God is the cause of the
initial singularity. Please retract your "NO ONE" phrase.

How about saying this: "Many people have talked about the 'Big Bang'
and not mentioned anything prior to it." This would be a true
statement, unlike the statement you made above.

> > WE DON'T KNOW >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
>
> See, guessing. PHD PHYSICISTS GUESS. Now, do I have to drop
> God for a GUESS. No. I can ignore ignorance and stay with God.

"WE DON'T KNOW" is different from "NOTHING", since "WE DON'T KNOW"
includes the possibility of God. This is an agnostic-like position,
not an atheistic position. You may still take issue with "WE DON'T
KNOW", but don't misrepresent the views of others (by substituting
"NOTHING" for "WE DON'T KNOW") just in order to bolster your argument.

>
> > By *you* inserting your mythical "NOTHING", you are creating a straw
> > man.
>
> I asked "politely" for ANYTHING other than a "we don't know" and
> got "nothing" back. In simple terms, hey John:
>
> DROP GOD for WE DON'T KNOW
>
> effectively becomes
>
> DROP GOD for NOTHING
>
> Get it??? I do know God created the universe, so I'm fine as is.

"WE DON'T KNOW" includes the possibility of GOD. "NOTHING" does not.
This is a big difference which you seem to be overlooking.

If you are so fine with this, then why are you so vehement about
misrepresenting those who disagree with you?

> > Many people who accept the validity of the "Big Bang" actually do
> > believe that it is God who created the singularity.
>
> Atheists don't! The previous poster IS an atheist. This whole
> post was the atheist saying God doesn't exist BECAUSE:

You are right. Atheists do not believe in God. However, in much of
what you have written in the past, you have used the word "physicist",
not "atheist". This is another misrepresentation. If you stick with
the word "atheist", then you are being more accurate and honest.

> WE HAVE PROOF GOD ISN'T NEEDED ... blah blah blah
>
> There's no proof in the "big bang" that drops God. Duh!

There is no proof that the supernatural instigator of the Big Bang has
even the faintest resemblence to God in the Bible, either. God's
existence or non-existence cannot be proven and must be accepted
solely on faith. This is nothing new.

> > Many of these
> > people, however, do not believe that God is exactly as described in
> > the Bible, since some of the things that are stated in the Bible are
> > contradicted by observed physical evidence. These people contend that
> > the Bible is a good approximation of God's nature, but that there are
> > things in the Bible that are incorrect.
>
> So they have their stumbling blocks, life goes on ...
>
> > If you believe that God did the "Big Bang" and then everything happened
> > pretty much the way that today's physicists are stating, then you are
> > in good company with many scientists.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > See the similarity??? Ya, truth hurts.
>
> > > God already said he created everthing.
>
> > > > It postulated that our time dimension for our universe started at the Big
> > > > Bang. It made no statement about what is before Big Bang, or even whether
> > > > there was a time dimension before that.
>
> > > See, total guessing and assuming a FALSE INTIAL STATE. No big
> > > deal, but don't expect EVERYONE ELSE to believe it.
>
> > No ... there is no assumption about an initial state at all. The only
> > thing said about what happened before the singularity is "We don't
> > know".
>
> Yes we do, God did it! Are you an atheist again? Just sentences
> ago you weren't. Hmm...

Calm down. I am representing the views of those who came up with the
Big Bang theory to show that you are not representing them accurately.
My views that God is the creator still stands.

> Sheeze, I'm stating here and now, God has been proven by the
> "big bang". The initial state gives the game to God, no way out.

God is not "proven" by the Big Bang. God cannot be proven. You must
accept God on faith. All that the Big Bang "proves" is this:

-- Matter and energy can spontaneously come into existence.

or

-- Some supernatural agent brought the matter and energy of the
universe into existence (but nothing can be inferred simply
from the Big Bang as to the *nature* of this supernatural agent ...
you need faith in the Bible to find out what God is *like*).

or

-- The matter and energy of the universe have always been in existence
(forever) in one form or another.

If your faith is based on the necessity to *prove* that God exists,
then your faith is on very shaky ground.

> > > NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> > > are the NOTHING parts.
>
> > > God created it all.
>
> > I am in agreement with you that God created all.
>
> Ok, your not an atheist.
>
> > I am in disagreement
> > with what appear to me to be your slightly dishonest methods of
> > argument, however.
>
> I've repeated exactly what science gave out as evidence to delete
> God with:
>
> NOTHING
>
> The big bang does not delete God, it shows he did it.

The Big Bang does not show that God did it. It *supports* the idea
that God could have done it. You must accept God on faith, since any
proof of God's existence is necessarily invalid. I can demonstrate
this, if you wish.

> > You have inserted a "NOTHING" prior to the
> > "SINGULARITY", and this "NOTHING" is not part of any "Big Bang"
> > theory.
>
> Bull, it's exactly what scientist's replaced God with, see watch:
>
> Bible -- God >> creation >> universe
>
> Physics -- nothing >> singularity >> universe
>
> Atheist -- nothing >> magic >> universe

You are once again misrepresenting physics. Change your second relation
to this:

Physics -- we don't know >> singularity >> universe

Remember that "we don't know" includes the possibility of God, and
that many physicists do indeed believe in God and believe that He
created the initial singularity (or whatever it was that was at the
starting point of the universe).

> > You then use *YOUR* inserted "NOTHING" to try to invalidate
> > this theory.
>
> It's invalid due to it's inability to match reality. The
> reality is God created the universe.

You ignored my point. You replaced "WE DON'T KNOW" (which includes
the possibility of God) with "NOTHING", and this is invalid and
dishonest.

> > In other words, you invalidly alter the theory into
> > something different than the way it is stated by its proponents, and
> > then you discredit *your* invalid version of this theory.
>
> Lloyd, I have lots of wire here and lots of light bulbs,
> neither creates energy or mass. Yet physicists come up
> with "just give me 1e-43 seconds and I'll make astronomical
> amounts of energy and matter". I'm laughing....

Show me more than a small handful of physicists who state this. Most
cosmologists (physicists who study the origin and make-up of the
universe) say "I don't know" where the singularity came from, and many
of these cosmologists believe in God ... and once again, remember that
"I don't know" includes the possibility of God.

> Thats identical to saying "by a total fluke (singularity),
> and just 1e-43 seconds, my 1 foot length of #22 wire exploded
> into the size of a universe". See how rediculious it is?
>
> It doesn't happen, unless God does it.

... or unless all the energy and matter have been around forever.
Remember that you cannot ever prove the existence of God. You must
accept God on faith.

> > You do not need to dishonor God by engaging in dishonest arguments in
> > favor of His existence. Fallacious arguments like these are doing God
> > a great disservice by driving intelligent, clear-thinking people away
> > from Him.
>
> Again, where's the matter build up, where's all the "little"
> singularities??? Why only HUGE singularites???
>
> You're being mislead, ask them to reproduce this singularity.
> Do you even know what it means???
>
> Have them show you evidence. What you thought they had some?
> There's none. I've asked again and again.
>
> God created it all.
>
> > And where did "evolution" come from? Is this another straw man?
> > There is *NOTHING* in any "Big Bang" theory that says anything about
> > evolution.
>
> You're a newbie for sure.

Go to a good library and read a few books on the origin of the
universe. These books talk about singularities, the big bang, and
other related concepts. These books do not talk about evolution.
Therefore it is another piece of dishonesty to state that the "Big
Bang" theory has anything to do with evolution. Many people who are
upset about the findings of science will lump the Big Bang and
evolution together to try to discredit both of them. This is a case
of bearing false witness.

If you want to discredit the Big Bang and evolution, then you must
discredit them separately, as they are two completely different
theories which discuss two completely different concepts.

I am not trying to argue against a belief in God ... after all, I
believe in God myself. What I *am* trying to do is to point out your
fallacious arguments which tend to drive honest seekers away from God.

> > Here's a better question to consider, in my opinion:
>
> > Do you believe that the following theory is valid or not? ...
>
> > GOD >> SINGULARITY >> UNIVERSE
>
> Oh, ok, I typed that above. Yes.
>
> > In other words, can you accept the possibility that God created the
> > universe via a big-bang-like event 10-20 billion years ago and then
> > caused things to happen in such a way that we ended up being here
> > on this planet as we are today? Or do you believe that God created
> > the universe exactly as described in Genesis? Or what?
>
> I believe he created the universe. He didn't give ALL the details.
>
> Do you get schematics with your computer? No. Only a simple set
> of manuals.

Oh ... OK. So do you believe that the Bible is just a simple set of
schematics? I take it, then, that you are not a fundamentalist, and
that you do not take the Bible to be literally accurate, word for word
... is that correct?

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
>

> > Tell us again ...
>
> Ya, ya, ya. Did you wash my car yet?

Well John, is there 365.25 days in a year as the webpage you cite claims
or is it 365.2422 as astronomy says?

Over ~2500 years this adds up to a 20 day error by itself on the part of
your freind's claim that "God's precision" predicts midnight May 15, 1948.
Every other figure he started with along with the whole concept was bogus.

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
>

> > Tell us again ...
>
> Ya, ya, ya. Did you wash my car yet?

Well John, is there 365.25 days in a year as the webpage you cite claims
or is it 365.2422 as astronomy says?

Over ~2500 years this adds up to a 20 day error by itself on the part of

your friend's claim that "God's precision" predicts midnight May 15, 1948.

[John P. Boatwright]

[John McDonnell]

John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<332396...@teleport.com>...

> Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> > nothing?
>
> What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?
>
> Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.
>

> Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.
>

It's not forever lost. Please refer to the law of conservation of energy.

snip!

> NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> are the NOTHING parts.
>
> God created it all.
>

Which one?

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> > > Capella wrote:
>

> > > > Tell us again ...
>
> > > Ya, ya, ya. Did you wash my car yet?
>

> > Well John, is there 365.25 days in a year as the webpage you cite claims
> > or is it 365.2422 as astronomy says?
>

> Where did you get this figure? Now, I trusted you the time you
> said the Earth's rotation was 365.25636, now you've changed it
> lower a full 0.01416 days (20.4 minutes). Hmm.... I bet
> your other numbers are bunk too.
>
> Anyway I have a simple college physics book that says 365.26
> days per year for the Earth (of course you know how physicists
> just guess all their results anyway).

I guess we've been waisting our time not adding that leap year on
centuries that end in 00 (except if divisable by 400) if your
figure is true.

>
> The chance of thought? Yes. Oh to wonder, to guess -- Carl Sagan.
> (From Steven Hawking Boatwright's BIG BOOK of physics)

>
> > Over ~2500 years this adds up to a 20 day error by itself on the part of
> > your friend's claim that "God's precision" predicts midnight May 15, 1948.
> > Every other figure he started with along with the whole concept was bogus.
>

> Your assuming the Earth has always rotated around the sun at the same
> rate. What happens when the Sun loses mass over time? Also I've yet
> to see your references for the start date of the Babylonian captivity.
>
> As usual, you're just be sleeping on the keyboard.

John, as I explained in another post, it doesn't matter if this period has
changed, your charlatan friend was using it to convert to the modern calendar.
The fraction was a shortcut to not have to figure which centuries don't have
leap years (which he conveniently ignored). The reason I focused on that
particular error is because:

A) Most people (at least on alt.atheism) can intuitively see why his 365.25
round off is wrong (that would assume that there were leap years every 4
years all the way back to ~500s BCE).

B) It alone (aside of the 6 other errors) throws what he claimed as
"God's precise prediction" (midnight May 15 1948) off by 20 days.

The final real calculation starting with his bogus starting figures and
rules actually put the reunification in the 25th century.

This guy did what other charlatans have been doing since day one, he took
a date that is interesting to christians, looked for some way to force
it into the old Testament prophets "predictions". The OT prophets (like
all other prophets) couldn't predict any better than the next guy. Their
careers and sometimes their lives were often at stake. That is why they
made their predictions as vauge as possible so they could twist them
to fit whatever really happens.

That's why you rarely every find concrete predictions by phrophets, but all
this jelly, poetic, symbolic, stuff. Not because it is "heavy" but because
they needed (like today's interpreters including your charlatan friend)
to be able to say "Oh, Magog is definitely the USSR" (in the 70s) or "Oh,
Magog is no doubt Nazi Germany" (in the 30s).

Who is the current Magog anyway? I've lost tract. When is the new date
that the bible is predicting for Armegeddon (with God's precision of course)?

Who is the current Anti-Christ whose name adds up to 666? (Past anti-christs
with that attribute: Hitler and Kissenger).

Is it me?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella #5
Dallas, Texas

"We have secretly replaced Jesus Christ with Folgers Crystals..."

[Capella]

Jeff Candy wrote:
>
> James S. Lovejoy:
>
> |> John P. Boatwright wrote:
> |> > --big snip--
> |> > Note in the Jesus and Peter image from Hubble Space Telescope
> |> > that even the green arc was described by the bible.
>
> |> I must have missed the part where the Bible said "The Hubble Space
> |> Telescope will show an image of Jesus and Peter with a green arc."
> |> Would you mind giving me book,chapter and verse?
>
> I should add that 'green' in your Jesus and Peter image most certainly
> does not represent the wavelength 5500 A (the visible color green).
> That is to say, that picture is probably invisible to the naked eye.
> You knew that, right?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Candy The University of Texas at Austin
> Institute for Fusion Studies Austin, Texas
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I get it!

Yea, I used to lay in the grass when I was a kid. I would see things
in the clouds too like bunnies and doggies.

I've heard it's a also a great tool for psychiatrists for diagnosing
psychosis.

They might also ask you questions like:

How long have you been seeing these things in the Hubble photographs?

Do you see them on oil slicks and in the earth clouds too?

Do you get along with your mother?

Do you hear any special voices that other people don't or have any
invisible playmates?

Have you been institutionalized before?

[Satan]

Your god IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sa...@www.berlinwall.org

[John P. Boatwright]

Capella wrote:

> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Capella wrote:

> > > Tell us again ...

> > Ya, ya, ya. Did you wash my car yet?

> Well John, is there 365.25 days in a year as the webpage you cite claims
> or is it 365.2422 as astronomy says?

Where did you get this figure? Now, I trusted you the time you
said the Earth's rotation was 365.25636, now you've changed it
lower a full 0.01416 days (20.4 minutes). Hmm.... I bet
your other numbers are bunk too.

Anyway I have a simple college physics book that says 365.26
days per year for the Earth (of course you know how physicists
just guess all their results anyway).

The chance of thought? Yes. Oh to wonder, to guess -- Carl Sagan.

[John P. Boatwright]

(Pigwash??? Haven't been ta them parts since the chevy lost the
spare tire.)

I was pointing out God started the big bang, not the stuff
"just explodes" on it's own.

(It's rare here Bob, I haven't seen anyone pass the test since
that guy accidently let his kid scribble on it. We didn't
think they'd actually start checking it. Lady said it looked
about the same as all the others from Lehigh County)

[Jeff Candy]

[Brandon M. Gorte]

John P. Boatwright (sa...@teleport.com) wrote:
:
: Where have you been? God has given piles of evidence. Just
: because you don't bother to check the stuff out....

Where have you been, Mars!?! On Earth, we have mountains of evidence
that the Bible doesn't even mention.

Brandon Gorte

[Capella]

Here is the crux of the charlatan's whole "argument".

That the Babylonian exile lasted exactly 70 years to the day
(which I proved easily and anyone that has a book can verify
this i.e. Issac Asimov's Guide to the Old Testament, Rev. J. R.
Dummelow, M.A. Bible commentary, etc...)

It didn't, it began in **597 BCE and lasted until 539-537 BCE.**

Not 606 BCE - 536 BCE *to the day*. If his 70 years to the day
is off by as little as **2 months**, this throws his calculation off
by a year.

He is off by ~11 years on the Babylonian captivity.

The worst part of his "theory" is the "further punishment"
which Lev 26 says nothing about. He is taking where Lev 26
says that God will "continue" to punish 7 fold and leaping
that to somehow mean that he will multiply any "further
punishment" again by 7 fold. This is BS.

Lev 26 doesn't multipy what's left of the current punishment,
it keeps saying the punishment changes to something **else**
worse. Not the same thing. The degree of punishment is of
the severity of the event not it's duration.

This is how he contrives to subtract a perfect 70 years
for the Babylonian captivity from the original punishment
that Ezekial predicted 430 years (which Ezekial got wrong)
before multiplying that by 7.

His Jewish calendar is wrong, it was alternating 29 and 30 day
months with periods every few years (something like our leap days)
(Source: Astronomy through the Telescope by Richard Learner)
adopted from the Babylonians during the exile itself.

Their lunar calendar went by lunar cycles which are ~29.5 days.
You get this by alternating 30 and 29 day months (59 days/2 = 29.5).

His figure for converting to modern years (365.25) is wrong it is
365.2422 which throws "God's precise calculation" for "midnight
May 15, 1948" off by 20 days.

You can't even use his bogus starting figures to get what he claims
because he rounds some numbers which would put his calculation off.

This guy is just another charlatan. He builds a flimsy house of cards
"prediction" that can easilly be tweaked here and there to predict
any event from 1900-2500. It's an old trick.

[Capella]

John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Capella wrote:
>

> > John, as I explained in another post, it doesn't matter if this period has
> > changed, your charlatan friend was using it to convert to the modern calendar.
> > The fraction was a shortcut to not have to figure which centuries don't have
> > leap years (which he conveniently ignored). The reason I focused on that
> > particular error is because:
>

> Lot's of talk, NO EVIDENCE. Why don't you calculate (here) how many
> days off this makes. OK?
>
> I won't wait. Do you work for ANEWS, that atheist rag?

>
> > A) Most people (at least on alt.atheism) can intuitively

> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> You mean they can't do math??? Sheeze, I knew it.
> Cheap-thinkers ...
>
> Why don't you do the math and pinpoint the amount of error?

>
> > see why his 365.25
> > round off is wrong (that would assume that there were leap years every 4
> > years all the way back to ~500s BCE).
>

> Show your calculation (FOR ONCE).
>

Here is the calculation your charlatan friend makes to get to the
number of days in the "7 fold punishment". Every starting figure
he uses is wrong as I have previously detailed, including his
starting premise:

(430-70) * 7 * 360 = 907200 days

To convert to modern solar years you use 365.2422 days not 365.25
days as he uses. His figure supposes that there are leap years
every four years continuosly which is not the case, we don't have
leap years for centuries that end in 00 unless they are divisable
by 400 because the earth doesn't go around the sun in a *perfect*
365 and 1/4 day intervals.

Here is his incorrect calculation for the punishment years (this
is ignoring his *6 other errors*):

907200 / 365.25 = 2483.778234 years.

The correct figure for converting to modern years:

907200 / 365.2422 = 2483.831277 years

2483.831277 - 2483.778234 = .0504288 years or 19.37 days

This *alone* throws "God's precise prediction" as the charlatan puts it
off by ~20 days.

I know your going to snip this line, but that is *ignoring* all of the
other *bogus numbers in his calculation* and his *bogus starting
premise*.

> > B) It alone (aside of the 6 other errors) throws what he claimed as
> > "God's precise prediction" (midnight May 15 1948) off by 20 days.
>

> List those 6 errors. Any you've spotted so far (you also made
> a few mistakes) are INSIGNIFICANT to the final answer.
>

I have listed them about 5 times now. I will be glad to list them again
and again even though you choose to close your eyes and plug your ears.

They will be in another post called sinking boatwrights 1948 prediction.

>
> > When is the new date
> > that the bible is predicting for Armegeddon (with God's precision of course)?
>

> You've read it, no one knows that one but God himself. But Jesus
> did give things to watch for.

Yes, and "interpreters" have been reinterpreting what those signs are
for different countries and people for centuries, and of course they
have all been wrong.

>
> > Who is the current Anti-Christ whose name adds up to 666? (Past anti-christs
> > with that attribute: Hitler and Kissenger).
>

> You can find numerious sites with their picks and why.
>
> > Is it me?
>
> You're high on the list ;-)
>

Thanks, I'll do my best. ;-)

> For Grant Jeffery's article on the 1948 date:
>
> http://www.direct.ca/trinity (article on Ezekiel and the 1948 date)

[zoner]

Capella,

It looks like you just reiterated your old tired arguments that John
already blew into next week, but hey maybe if you tell a lie long enough
people will start beleiving it, it has worked before.

Capella (cap...@airmail.net) wrote:
: Here is the crux of the charlatan's whole "argument".

: His figure for converting to modern years (365.25) is wrong it is

: 365.2422 which throws "God's precise calculation" for "midnight
: May 15, 1948" off by 20 days.
:
: You can't even use his bogus starting figures to get what he claims
: because he rounds some numbers which would put his calculation off.
:
: This guy is just another charlatan. He builds a flimsy house of cards
: "prediction" that can easilly be tweaked here and there to predict
: any event from 1900-2500. It's an old trick.

:
:
:
:
:
: --

[Warwick Finch]

James S. Lovejoy wrote:

> Creation 'science' fundamentalism: recruiting arm of Atheists of America

Amen to that!!! I was an apathetic agnostic till one of my friends was
brainwashed by a fundie creationist cult. All the soul searching that
provoked has helped me realise that thiesm is totally illogical, often
evil and a corrupter of wonderful people.

Warwick
(Athiest in Australia)

[John P. Boatwright]

Scal...@concentric.net wrote:

> Copping out to God isn't going to explain anything, and even less it
> using the Bible to justify it. The Bible is a text of half-truths and
> distorted facts, many of which have been edited over time. Even if
> none of the big bang theory were even remotely true, Biblical account
> is certainly too bogus to merit any claim to the real universe.

Where have you been? God has given piles of evidence. Just
because you don't bother to check the stuff out....

God is 100% real, and Jesus died for your sins.

[John P. Boatwright]

Capella wrote:

> John, as I explained in another post, it doesn't matter if this period has
> changed, your charlatan friend was using it to convert to the modern calendar.
> The fraction was a shortcut to not have to figure which centuries don't have
> leap years (which he conveniently ignored). The reason I focused on that
> particular error is because:

Lot's of talk, NO EVIDENCE. Why don't you calculate (here) how many
days off this makes. OK?

I won't wait. Do you work for ANEWS, that atheist rag?

> A) Most people (at least on alt.atheism) can intuitively
^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean they can't do math??? Sheeze, I knew it.
Cheap-thinkers ...

Why don't you do the math and pinpoint the amount of error?

> see why his 365.25
> round off is wrong (that would assume that there were leap years every 4
> years all the way back to ~500s BCE).

Show your calculation (FOR ONCE).

> B) It alone (aside of the 6 other errors) throws what he claimed as
> "God's precise prediction" (midnight May 15 1948) off by 20 days.

List those 6 errors. Any you've spotted so far (you also made
a few mistakes) are INSIGNIFICANT to the final answer.

God knew the date back in Genesis.

By the way, May 15, 1948 was when British Mandate ENDED. Grant
Jeffery did list it, and the May 14, 1948 date as when Israel
was declared an independent nation

Grant Jeffery is a well respected bible scholar (of course
not well respected by atheists) and has researched the bible
and prophecies over his lifetime. Something maybe you might
want to start doing (after you lose your job at ANEWS).

> The final real calculation starting with his bogus starting figures and
> rules actually put the reunification in the 25th century.

That's pure trash. You should start your own ANEWS rag.

There were NO bogus figures for the start date anywhere. Unless
you're saying MICROSOFT ENCARTA 1996 is in error, OR the
Encyclopedia Britanica, or ....

Duh, you've totally blown it.

> This guy did what other charlatans have been doing since day one, he took
> a date that is interesting to christians, looked for some way to force
> it into the old Testament prophets "predictions". The OT prophets (like
> all other prophets) couldn't predict any better than the next guy. Their
> careers and sometimes their lives were often at stake. That is why they
> made their predictions as vauge as possible so they could twist them
> to fit whatever really happens.

The dates are right and are found in the common everyday
Encyclopedia. You can then do simple math with the given
prophecies, and minutes later (years for you) you get the
1948 Israel becomes a nation date.

You are working for ANEWS, admit it. If you get shown to
be THE total loser "interpreter of scripture" that you are,
you'll end up losing your job, RIGHT??? It's no wonder you
can't figure the stuff out (you don't want to).

> That's why you rarely every find concrete predictions by phrophets, but all
> this jelly, poetic, symbolic, stuff. Not because it is "heavy" but because
> they needed (like today's interpreters including your charlatan friend)
> to be able to say "Oh, Magog is definitely the USSR" (in the 70s) or "Oh,
> Magog is no doubt Nazi Germany" (in the 30s).

Oh so WE HAVEN'T JUST RECENTLY STARTED archeology digs in this last
century??? Doesn't it take time to find and catalog all that stuff
to figure out the history??? Sure as more data is found, they
eventually track down the original info. They only recently
dug up evidence of King David's rule, why do you expect the
stuff to NOT settle to the correct form?

> Who is the current Magog anyway? I've lost tract.

There's a pile of sites showing Magog. Go look the stuff up.

> When is the new date
> that the bible is predicting for Armegeddon (with God's precision of course)?

You've read it, no one knows that one but God himself. But Jesus
did give things to watch for.

> Who is the current Anti-Christ whose name adds up to 666? (Past anti-christs
> with that attribute: Hitler and Kissenger).

You can find numerious sites with their picks and why.

> Is it me?

You're high on the list ;-)

[John P. Boatwright]

Bill Gibson wrote:
>
> John P. Boatwright wrote:

> > Well, 2500 year old prophecies coming true during
> > this generation does sway me a bit towards the bible.

> One example. Come on, I dare you. One example from the bible which has
> actually happened in 'this generation'. And 'this bloke caught a rabbit
> like it says in Genesis' doesn't count. One prophecy that has come true
> to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Eze 37, along with Jerimiah 16:14,15.

Note that the initial part of Eze 37 is two separate analogies
building to Eze 37:21. The first analogy shows the Jews being
dispersed, trashed, and thinking they are dead as a nation.
The second analogy shows the lands of "old Judah" and "old
Israel" joining into the land of Israel. The analogies are
said to be such in Eze 37:11 and Eze 37:16. Those 2 analogies
are the "bones" and "sticks" parts. Anyway Eze 37:21 then
says that the Jews would return to their land and become
a nation again.

Jerimiah 16:14,15 is pretty much self explanatory.

http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god (proof of God for this again)

http://www.direct.ca/trinity (article on prediction of 1948
return of Jews to Israel)

See the bible for Jerusalem becoming a burdensome stone in
the end time. Predicted by God. Three major world religions
claim Jerusalem as their capital. Exactly as God said.

See predictions of Jesus in the Yashua codes at the "trinity"
site above. See images from Hubble Space Telescope on the
"For God" site above.

Best wishes.

[John P. Boatwright]

John McDonnell wrote:

> John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> <332396...@teleport.com>...
> > Wen-King Su wrote:

> > > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> > > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> > > nothing?

> > What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?

> > Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.

> > Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> > is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.

> It's not forever lost. Please refer to the law of conservation of energy.

Space is not a closed system!

> > NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> > are the NOTHING parts.

> > God created it all.

> Which one?

The only God there ever was, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

See http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god

See http://www.direct.ca/trinity <<< lots of proof here <<<

See the bible, I prefer the King James AV.

Anyway, ask Jesus to forgive your sins, it's FREE.

[Wen-King Su]

In a previous article "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> writes:
:

You have yet to show you can tell apart a powerful deceiver from God.
You can know nothing to be true of God, including whether he is real
and exists.

[John McDonnell]

John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in article

<33274E...@teleport.com>...
> Capella wrote:
snip!

According to the data in my ephemeris, the orbital period of the earth is
365.2422 days, to four significant decimal places.

>

[Capella]

That's absolutely correct. Because of that not every 4 years has a leap
day. Centuries that end in 00 do not get a leap day unless they are
divisible by 400.

Boatwright's charlatan friend uses 356.25 ignoring the lack of leap
years in centuries that end in 00.

This the least of his 6 other mistakes and bogus premises.

Thanks for the verification.

[Daneel]

In article <3328EC...@teleport.com>,

sa...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> John McDonnell wrote:
>
> > John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in article

> > <332396...@teleport.com>...
> > > Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> > > > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form with no
> > > > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe was once
> > > > nothing?
>
> > > What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?
>
> > > Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.
>
> > > Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> > > is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.
>
> > It's not forever lost. Please refer to the law of conservation of energy.
>
> Space is not a closed system!

OF COURSE it is!!! I mean space+ what is in it. Or; if you believe it
isn't, tell us please to what it is open!

> > > NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> > > are the NOTHING parts.
>
> > > God created it all.
>
> > Which one?
>
> The only God there ever was, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I tought Zeus and company did it. or was it Satan? Or Rama?...

> See http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god

I haven't laughed soo good in the last two years... Are you serious?
If you want to see Bible pictures in nature, watch clouds! It doesn't
depend upon if you watch clouds in the sky or clouds in space...

> See http://www.direct.ca/trinity <<< lots of proof here <<<

Proofs??? Brainwashing, yes! I looked and every article starts with
the "conclusion". Pretty biased, duh! Just the first sentence:
>>> These scientific conclusions didn't just rock the <<<
>>> boat of the scientific community, they capsized it. <<<
How is that no one noticed it?...
But I CHALLENGE YOU to post all of these papers on talk.origins.
Let's look how we dissect them.

> See the bible, I prefer the King James AV.

See the Qum'ran. See the Vedas. See aboriginie paintings...

> Anyway, ask Jesus to forgive your sins, it's FREE.

Jesus, forgive YOUR sins! Your cloud-wathing throws a shadow on
Christianity.

Bye

Daneel (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
||
\ || /
\ || /
\ || / ...and there were no dinosaurs.
^^^^^^^~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^
Nature is so complex - some of its parts will not even grasp it.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Sam Finlay]

Isn't it revealing that you did some "soul searching"? Why not
do a little further investigation into Christianity? In no way
are all ( or even most ) Christians, fundamentalists. After all,
you've just traded agnosticism for a atheism which is in itself
a faith.
Sam

[Christopher A. Lee]

In article <33298C...@btg.com> Sam Finlay <sfi...@btg.com> writes:

>Warwick Finch wrote:
>>
>> Amen to that!!! I was an apathetic agnostic till one of my friends was
>> brainwashed by a fundie creationist cult. All the soul searching that
>> provoked has helped me realise that thiesm is totally illogical, often
>> evil and a corrupter of wonderful people.
>>
>> Warwick
>> (Athiest in Australia)
>
>Isn't it revealing that you did some "soul searching"? Why not
>do a little further investigation into Christianity? In no way
>are all ( or even most ) Christians, fundamentalists. After all,
>you've just traded agnosticism for a atheism which is in itself
>a faith.

Except that he didn't.

Atheism is not "in itself a faith". It's the absence of part of your faith.

Your deity called "God" is as unimportant and irrelevant to us as eg
somebody else's deity called "Zeus" is to you.

But then what would I be expected to know about this? After all, I'm only
an atheist, and you *obviously* know so much more about atheists do or
don't believe than we do ourselves.

>Sam

[Mr. DNA]

Sam Finlay <sfi...@btg.com> wrote:

>Warwick Finch wrote:
>>
>> James S. Lovejoy wrote:
>>
>> > Creation 'science' fundamentalism: recruiting arm of Atheists of America
>>

>> Amen to that!!! I was an apathetic agnostic till one of my friends was
>> brainwashed by a fundie creationist cult. All the soul searching that
>> provoked has helped me realise that thiesm is totally illogical, often
>> evil and a corrupter of wonderful people.
>>
>> Warwick
>> (Athiest in Australia)
>
>Isn't it revealing that you did some "soul searching"? Why not
>do a little further investigation into Christianity? In no way
>are all ( or even most ) Christians, fundamentalists. After all,
>you've just traded agnosticism for a atheism which is in itself
>a faith.

>Sam

If you want to call it a faith, at least label it correctly. It's
like an anti-hero or a negative value. If you want to call it a
"faith," then call it a negative faith.

---------------
Rev. -N->R<-H- (c)
"What is it: is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of Man?" -Nietzsche
reve...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Atheist #217
Duty Now For the Future!
Ordained:
The Church of the Subgenius
Universal Life Church
First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine
Saint: 24 Hour Church of Elvis
It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited commercial email
per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a US $500 charge for
reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited
commercial email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms. My
posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving nor is
intended to solicit commercial email.

[Steve Leong]

Daneel wrote:
> =

> In article <3328EC...@teleport.com>,
> sa...@teleport.com wrote:
> >
> > John McDonnell wrote:
> >
> > > John P. Boatwright <sa...@teleport.com> wrote in article
> > > <332396...@teleport.com>...
> > > > Wen-King Su wrote:
> >

> > > > > What makes you think if they are right then matter should form =
with no
> > > > > external energy input? Did anyone postulate that the universe =

was once
> > > > > nothing?
> >
> > > > What else would it be? A solid bar of gold infinite in X,Y,Z?
> >
> > > > Lots of nothing between galaxies, eh? Hmmm... Here we ago again.
> >
> > > > Did you know as a star burns it's fuel, all that radiant energy
> > > > is dumped out into nothingness, forever lost.
> >

> > > It's not forever lost. Please refer to the law of conservation of e=

nergy.
> >
> > Space is not a closed system!

> =

> OF COURSE it is!!! I mean space+ what is in it. Or; if you believe it
> isn't, tell us please to what it is open!

> =

> > > > NOTHING does not CREATE anything. The "big bang" and "evolution"
> > > > are the NOTHING parts.
> >
> > > > God created it all.
> >
> > > Which one?
> >
> > The only God there ever was, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

> =

> I tought Zeus and company did it. or was it Satan? Or Rama?...

> =

> > See http://www.teleport.com/~salad/4god
> =

> I haven't laughed soo good in the last two years... Are you serious?
> If you want to see Bible pictures in nature, watch clouds! It doesn't
> depend upon if you watch clouds in the sky or clouds in space...

> =

> > See http://www.direct.ca/trinity <<< lots of proof here <<<

> =

> Proofs??? Brainwashing, yes! I looked and every article starts with
> the "conclusion". Pretty biased, duh! Just the first sentence:
> >>> These scientific conclusions didn't just rock the <<<
> >>> boat of the scientific community, they capsized it. <<<
> How is that no one noticed it?...
> But I CHALLENGE YOU to post all of these papers on talk.origins.
> Let's look how we dissect them.

> =

> > See the bible, I prefer the King James AV.

> =

> See the Qum'ran. See the Vedas. See aboriginie paintings...

> =

> > Anyway, ask Jesus to forgive your sins, it's FREE.

> =

> Jesus, forgive YOUR sins! Your cloud-wathing throws a shadow on
> Christianity.

> =

> Bye
> =

> Daneel (ust...@cs.elte.hu)
> ||
> \ || /
> \ || /
> \ || / ...and there were no dinosaurs.
> ^^^^^^^~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^
> Nature is so complex - some of its parts will not even grasp it.

> =

> -------------------=3D=3D=3D=3D Posted via Deja News =3D=3D=3D=3D------=

-----------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

However, in this decade, astronomers and physicists have proven that the
universe is finite=97 in time and in extent. Though it is
extremely old and big, it is still absurdly too young and absurdly too
small to explain life's coming together by natural processes.
Furthermore, astronomers have gone on to prove that the universe
requires a Creator, a Creator who exists beyond our dimensions of
space and time. Of all the writings forming the basis for the different
religions of the world, only one, the Bible, agrees with these latest
scientific breakthroughs. =

We live in a day when findings every year at the frontiers of research
in astronomy, physics, and other fields, simply multiply the weight
of evidence for the supernatural accuracy of the Bible.

[John P. Boatwright]

Catapilla, you posted this yesterday. We've already shown several
times:

(USING STANDARD REFERENCE ENCYCLOPIAS)

Jehoiakim King of Israel beginning of reign ......... 609 BC
Jehoiakim is a vassel king to Egyptian rule.
His reign was 609-597 BC.

Dan 1:1, 3rd year into reign, Daniel is taken ....... 606 BC <<<
by Nebuchadnezzar (son of king Nebopolassar
of Babylon). King Jehoiakim is now answering
to Babylonian rule. Babylonian captivity is
BEGINNING.

Nebuchadnezzar becomes king of Babylon and .......... 605 BC
wins the most decisive battle in the
middle east at Carchemish, his father
king Nebopolassar dies.

Dan 2:1, Daniel is asked to interpret ............... 604 BC
king Nebuchadnezzars first dream in his 2nd
year of reign.

2 KI 24:1 king Jehoiakim of Israel becomes servant .. 600 BC
to king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

King Jehoiakim of Israel rebels against Babylon ..... 597 BC
and is taken captive. His son Jehoiachin rules
for a few months and is then taken captive too.

Further confirmation is 2 KI 23:36 where Jehoiakim is
stated to have reigned for >>> 11 years <<< as king of
Israel. This exactly matches the references.

The key is that Israel was attacked 1 year prior to
the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC against Syria.

If you review the map you then see that Israel is
between Syria and Babylon, right in the path
of Nebuchadnezzar's eventual battle with Syria.

Nebuchadnezzar WOULD HAVE TO CLEAR THE PATH TO SYRIA
BY 605 BC TO WIN THE WAR. 606 BC is the initial
start of the Babylonian captivity (Daniel one of
the greatest prophets was taken).

So God was right about the 70 year captivity and
the 1948 prediction of Israel's return as a nation.

You lose (again) ;-)

Ask Jesus to forgive your sins. Not much time left.

[Scal...@concentric.net]

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 05:48:18 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
<sa...@teleport.com> wrote:

>Scal...@concentric.net wrote:
>
>> Copping out to God isn't going to explain anything, and even less it
>> using the Bible to justify it. The Bible is a text of half-truths and
>> distorted facts, many of which have been edited over time. Even if
>> none of the big bang theory were even remotely true, Biblical account
>> is certainly too bogus to merit any claim to the real universe.
>
>Where have you been? God has given piles of evidence. Just
>because you don't bother to check the stuff out....

How would you know? I probably know more about your religion than you
do!

I would like you to point out for me one piece of evidence that I've
supposedly missed that proves your fabulous Biblical account.

>God is 100% real, and Jesus died for your sins.

Yeah, sure.