info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Only Possible Conclusion - For The Rational Mind
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 3:09:54 AM2/11/17
to
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
been able to overcome.
Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory
concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
is that of an outward progressing spiral.
Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
science can prove anything, that the universe had
a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe could not have begun itself.
The most scientific and logical conclusion to
which we could possibly come to is that: "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth." ~ H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics
and origins, the above can be the only possible
conclusion for the rational mind. Glory to God.
barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
been able to overcome.
Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory
concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
is that of an outward progressing spiral.
Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
science can prove anything, that the universe had
a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe could not have begun itself.
The most scientific and logical conclusion to
which we could possibly come to is that: "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth." ~ H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics
and origins, the above can be the only possible
conclusion for the rational mind. Glory to God.
Malcolm McMahon
Feb 11, 2017, 3:27:44 AM2/11/17
to
"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>been able to overcome.
>
Oh, not the entropy thing again. How many times has it been pointed out to you
>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>been able to overcome.
>
that the law requiring increasing entropy is applicable only to closed systems,
and that the biosphere is so far away from being a closed system it needs
astronomical telescopes to see one?
By the same argument the fridge in your kitchen couldn't possibly work.
Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
elsewhere.
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 3:40:10 AM2/11/17
to
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
> Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
> frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
> elsewhere.
Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
> Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
> frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
> elsewhere.
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 4:39:09 AM2/11/17
to
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
> the biosphere is so far away from being a closed
> system it needs astronomical telescopes to see one?
The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
> system it needs astronomical telescopes to see one?
that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were
not for such *mechanisms* there would be no life on
our planet.
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 4:53:06 AM2/11/17
to
"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>>been able to overcome.
>
> Oh, not the entropy thing again. How many times has it
> been pointed out to you that the law requiring increasing
> entropy is applicable only to closed systems,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>>been able to overcome.
>
> Oh, not the entropy thing again. How many times has it
> been pointed out to you that the law requiring increasing
> entropy is applicable only to closed systems,
"There are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated
for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally
well to open systems..There is somehow associated
with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics
the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails
for such systems. It is important to make sure that this
error does not perpetuate itself."
~ Dr John Ross, Chemist, Harvard University
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 5:06:16 AM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:09:50 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>been able to overcome.
>
>Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>exclusive concepts.
Unless its not a closed system.
<andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>been able to overcome.
>
>Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>exclusive concepts.
>If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>then evolution must be impossible.
>
>The very terms themselves express contradictory
>concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>
>Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>science can prove anything, that the universe had
>a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>the universe could not have begun itself.
We do know how God began.
>The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>the beginning God created the heavens and the
>earth." ~ H.Morris
>
>
>When we consider the laws of thermodynamics
>and origins, the above can be the only possible
>conclusion for the rational mind. Glory to God.
What is God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
--
President Trump will make America great again
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 5:06:31 AM2/11/17
to
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 5:12:54 AM2/11/17
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Kadaitcha Man
Feb 11, 2017, 5:14:51 AM2/11/17
to
Andrew, frailty, thy name is woman. Ye are a pasty-faced rascal, a
fly-covered arrant knave, a flap-mouthed enemy inveterate, a bearded
poor unvirtuous fat knight, ye hassled:
A thoroughly debunked fabrication.
Source: creation.com
Try this: http://factsnotfantasy.com/creationists.php
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
fly-covered arrant knave, a flap-mouthed enemy inveterate, a bearded
poor unvirtuous fat knight, ye hassled:
Source: creation.com
Try this: http://factsnotfantasy.com/creationists.php
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
Gordon
Feb 11, 2017, 8:04:02 AM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:14 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
<Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:39:03 -0800, "Andrew"
><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
>>
>>> the biosphere is so far away from being a closed
>>> system it needs astronomical telescopes to see one?
>>
>>The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
>>that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were
>>not for such *mechanisms* there would be no life on
>>our planet.
>
>What is God?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
>
Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV) And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words
<Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:39:03 -0800, "Andrew"
><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
>>
>>> the biosphere is so far away from being a closed
>>> system it needs astronomical telescopes to see one?
>>
>>The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
>>that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were
>>not for such *mechanisms* there would be no life on
>>our planet.
>
>What is God?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
>
are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be
purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly:
and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall
understand.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 8:28:15 AM2/11/17
to
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 9:14:00 AM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:04:00 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
answer the question which was asked in the real world, imbecile?
Gordon
Feb 11, 2017, 10:10:00 AM2/11/17
to
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 10:16:49 AM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:09:57 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
Then you and it have the same IQ, imbecile.
Learn to read,
Learn to read,
Irreverend Dave
Feb 11, 2017, 10:19:02 AM2/11/17
to
On 11 Feb 2017, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
> been able to overcome.
>
> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
> exclusive concepts.
>
> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
> then evolution must be impossible.
>
> The very terms themselves express contradictory
> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>
> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
> science can prove anything, that the universe had
> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
> the universe could not have begun itself.
>
> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
> the beginning God created the heavens and the
> earth." ~ H.Morris
Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from the Sun, are you
> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
> been able to overcome.
>
> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
> exclusive concepts.
>
> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
> then evolution must be impossible.
>
> The very terms themselves express contradictory
> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>
> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
> science can prove anything, that the universe had
> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
> the universe could not have begun itself.
>
> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
> the beginning God created the heavens and the
> earth." ~ H.Morris
Andrew?
From Rationalwiki:
Henry M. Morris (October 6, 1918 - 2013 February 25, 2006) was the
original modern young Earth creationist. His 1961 book The Genesis Flood,
co-written with John C. Whitcomb, served as the seminal text for the
budding creationist movement. He coined the term "scientific
creationism".
He trained as an engineer, receiving a B.S. in civil engineering from
Rice University in 1939 and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the
University of Minnesota in 1950.
Morris's spiritual heirs have had the edge worn off their works by
exposure to the real world. Morris' works are vastly more unashamedly
batshit insane than the typical run of 21st-century creationism.
--
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly
teaches me to suspect that my own is also. - Mark Twain
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 11:43:31 AM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:17:13 -0000 (UTC), Irreverend Dave
<revere...@ministerpants.com> wrote:
>On 11 Feb 2017, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome.
>>
>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
A deliberately stupid lie which is only intended to annoy = about
<revere...@ministerpants.com> wrote:
>On 11 Feb 2017, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome.
>>
>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
something that is nothing to do with atheism.
.
>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>> then evolution must be impossible.
What a fucking moron.
>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>> then evolution must be impossible.
>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>
>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>> the universe could not have begun itself.
again.
>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from the Sun, are you
>Andrew?
>From Rationalwiki:
>
>Henry M. Morris (October 6, 1918 - 2013 February 25, 2006) was the
>original modern young Earth creationist. His 1961 book The Genesis Flood,
>co-written with John C. Whitcomb, served as the seminal text for the
>budding creationist movement. He coined the term "scientific
>creationism".
>
>He trained as an engineer, receiving a B.S. in civil engineering from
>Rice University in 1939 and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the
>University of Minnesota in 1950.
>
>Morris's spiritual heirs have had the edge worn off their works by
>exposure to the real world. Morris' works are vastly more unashamedly
>batshit insane than the typical run of 21st-century creationism.
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 12:13:54 PM2/11/17
to
"Irreverend Dave" wrote in message news:XnsA71969030...@213.239.209.88...
and what will you see? Entropy happened. Amen.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome.
>>
>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>> exclusive concepts.
>>
>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>
>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>
>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>
>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>
>
> Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from
> the Sun, are you Andrew?
Leave your car our in the hot sun for twenty years
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome.
>>
>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>> exclusive concepts.
>>
>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>
>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>
>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>
>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>
>
> Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from
> the Sun, are you Andrew?
and what will you see? Entropy happened. Amen.
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 12:14:48 PM2/11/17
to
"Tim" wrote in message news:a7a9f2e6-672a-4476...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
Yes exactly, the origin of which would not be possible apart
from a Creation..if the second law were a universal principle.
. . which it is.
Therefore again, more positive evidence for a Creation by
our awesome and most wonderful Creator. Glory to Him.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote:
>>
>> > Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
>> > frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
>> > elsewhere.
>>
>> Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
>
> It's called biochemistry, look it up.
>>
>> > Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
>> > frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
>> > elsewhere.
>>
>> Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
>
Yes exactly, the origin of which would not be possible apart
from a Creation..if the second law were a universal principle.
. . which it is.
Therefore again, more positive evidence for a Creation by
our awesome and most wonderful Creator. Glory to Him.
Gordon
Feb 11, 2017, 3:18:46 PM2/11/17
to
>On 11 Feb 2017, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome.
>>
>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>> exclusive concepts.
>>
>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>
>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>
>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>
>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>
>
>Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from the Sun, are you
>Andrew?
>
Some confusion in this area stems from the fact that the word "earth"
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome.
>>
>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>> exclusive concepts.
>>
>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>
>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>
>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>
>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>
>
>Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from the Sun, are you
>Andrew?
>
probably meant this universe to those scribes who wrote those
documents that became the Bible. They used the word "world" when they
were talking about this planet we live on.
In the beginning God created the heavens (other dimensional space
frames) and the earth (this universe we are able to perceive). And
this universe (earth) was without form (matter) and void (empty
space). It was just a point...then God triggered the Big Bang and
initiated the expansion.
Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
formed.
Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
Adam A. Wanderer
Feb 11, 2017, 3:28:23 PM2/11/17
to
"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote in
news:yfKdneJZ6ObQ2wLF...@earthlink.com:
Car equals Earth??? Damn, you are stupid! Try educating yourself:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>
<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>
<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>
<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>
<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>
<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>
<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>
<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjFgcOId-ZY>
<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>
<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>
<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>
<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>
<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>
<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>
<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>
<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>
<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>
<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>
<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>
<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>
<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>
<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>
<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>
<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>
<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>
<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>
<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>
<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>
<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>
<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>
<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>
<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>
"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>
<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>
<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>
<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>
<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>
<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>
<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>
<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>
<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>
<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>
<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
news:yfKdneJZ6ObQ2wLF...@earthlink.com:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District>
<http://tinyurl.com/bmxa4rc>
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-
to-creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
<http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-
amateur-cambrian-follies/>
<http://tinyurl.com/grmdhtv>
<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+myers>
<http://tinyurl.com/zlcp8u9>
<http://donaldprothero.com/quotes.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/hp2vd4v>
<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=Lee+Strobel%27s>
<http://tinyurl.com/zbl54ww>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjFgcOId-ZY>
<http://tinyurl.com/j9nkey5>
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zvyyhxn>
<http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/>
<http://tinyurl.com/c72j7wv>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_replication>
<http://tinyurl.com/goxgec9>
<https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>
<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>
<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?
_r=0>
<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>
<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>
<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>
<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>
<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>
<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>
<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>
<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>
<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>
<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>
<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>
<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>
<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>
<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>
<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>
<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>
<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>
"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>
<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>
<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>
<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>
<http://americanloons.blogspot.com/search?q=macarthur>
<http://tinyurl.com/jenrqkq>
<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>
<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>
<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>
<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>
<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 3:53:20 PM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
The confusion is yours, imbecile, because you are so desperate for
your mythology to be true that you try to twist what the ignorant,
ancient primitives wrote to fit what you _imagine_ is modern knowledge
but isn't.
>In the beginning God
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
Grow up and stop being so deliberately and rudely stupid.
wrote:
your mythology to be true that you try to twist what the ignorant,
ancient primitives wrote to fit what you _imagine_ is modern knowledge
but isn't.
>In the beginning God
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
Grow up and stop being so deliberately and rudely stupid.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 4:24:06 PM2/11/17
to
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 5:01:25 PM2/11/17
to
"Tim" wrote in message news:o7nhvn$e4l$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> "Andrew" wrote:
The above is evidence that, in order to maintain their beliefs,
some atheists will even deny solidly established scientific law.
If the entropy principle really is a universal law, then the "goo
to you" story is an impossibility, and atheism is a deception.
Folks, it is futile for you to fight against the truth.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote:
>>>> > Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
>>>> > frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
>>>> > elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
>>>
>>> It's called biochemistry, look it up.
>>
>> Yes exactly, the origin of which would not be possible apart
>> from a Creation..if the second law were a universal principle.
>> . . which it is.
>
> Nonsense.
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote:
>>>> > Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
>>>> > frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
>>>> > elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
>>>
>>> It's called biochemistry, look it up.
>>
>> Yes exactly, the origin of which would not be possible apart
>> from a Creation..if the second law were a universal principle.
>> . . which it is.
>
>
>> Therefore again, more positive evidence for a Creation by
>> our awesome and most wonderful Creator. Glory to Him.
>
> More nonsense.
>> Therefore again, more positive evidence for a Creation by
>> our awesome and most wonderful Creator. Glory to Him.
>
The above is evidence that, in order to maintain their beliefs,
some atheists will even deny solidly established scientific law.
If the entropy principle really is a universal law, then the "goo
to you" story is an impossibility, and atheism is a deception.
Folks, it is futile for you to fight against the truth.
Andrew
Feb 11, 2017, 5:01:45 PM2/11/17
to
"Davej" wrote in message news:992ced04-7652-44f7...@googlegroups.com...
>
> When we consider that Henry Morris was an engineer and not
> a scientist and had no understanding of anything other than
> hydraulic engineering, with no understanding of critical
> thinking or thermodynamics or biology or evolution the
> above quote is quite comical.
Dave, go ahead and list your credentials for us now.
Thanks.
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome."
>> ~ H.Morris
>
>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>> been able to overcome."
>
> When we consider that Henry Morris was an engineer and not
> a scientist and had no understanding of anything other than
> hydraulic engineering, with no understanding of critical
> thinking or thermodynamics or biology or evolution the
> above quote is quite comical.
Dave, go ahead and list your credentials for us now.
Thanks.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 5:14:47 PM2/11/17
to
>In the beginning God created the heavens (other dimensional space
>frames) and the earth (this universe we are able to perceive). And
>this universe (earth) was without form (matter) and void (empty
>space). It was just a point...then God triggered the Big Bang and
>initiated the expansion.
>
>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>formed.
>
>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
Arrogant!
Gordon
Feb 11, 2017, 7:39:59 PM2/11/17
to
atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
>
>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>
God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>
carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
here?
>
>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>
>Arrogant!
>
Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>
>Arrogant!
>
useless without optical light.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 11, 2017, 7:58:38 PM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
How did waves outside our visible range come to be?
>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>
>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>here?
You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>
>>Arrogant!
>>
>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>useless without optical light.
The following video explains it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>
>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>here?
>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>
>>Arrogant!
>>
>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>useless without optical light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
Gordon
Feb 11, 2017, 8:58:39 PM2/11/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Numerous processes produce waves such as this, but they are not
visible and are not referred to as light. No one can see gravity waves
or radio waves, etc., for example. Visible light is produced when a
valence electron is bumped into an elevated state then it emits a
photon when it returns to its stable state. There must be atoms with
valence electrons before visible range light can be produced. Gordon
light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
universe/multiverse and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
to perceive everything that happens. He is aware of every hair on our
heads. He is aware of every bird that falls. Gordon
visible and are not referred to as light. No one can see gravity waves
or radio waves, etc., for example. Visible light is produced when a
valence electron is bumped into an elevated state then it emits a
photon when it returns to its stable state. There must be atoms with
valence electrons before visible range light can be produced. Gordon
>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>here?
>
>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>
God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>>>
>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>here?
>
>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>
light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
universe/multiverse and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
to perceive everything that happens. He is aware of every hair on our
heads. He is aware of every bird that falls. Gordon
>
>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>
>>>Arrogant!
>>>
>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>useless without optical light.
>
>The following video explains it all.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>
If this entertains you I'm amazed.
>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>
>>>Arrogant!
>>>
>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>useless without optical light.
>
>The following video explains it all.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 9:05:41 PM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
Why do you keep repeating the same unsolicited nonsense, imbecile?
Do you seriously expect a different answer?
>>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>God
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
> doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>here?
>>
>>You are saying God
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
>> has no way to understand us.
Liar. He's only applying logic to your unsolicited nonsense.
>God
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
Do you seriously expect a different answer?
>>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>God
> doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>here?
>>
>>You are saying God
>> has no way to understand us.
>God
WHAT FUCKING GOD?
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 11, 2017, 9:13:59 PM2/11/17
to
In article <8l2u9c5m4rb8v99c5...@4ax.com>,
nothing but a book of myths?
--
JD
"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:14 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:39:03 -0800, "Andrew"
> ><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
> >>
> >>> the biosphere is so far away from being a closed
> >>> system it needs astronomical telescopes to see one?
> >>
> >>The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
> >>that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were
> >>not for such *mechanisms* there would be no life on
> >>our planet.
> >
> >What is God?
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
> >
> Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV)
Why are you posting a bible passage in a group that knows that it is
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:14 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:39:03 -0800, "Andrew"
> ><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
> >>
> >>> the biosphere is so far away from being a closed
> >>> system it needs astronomical telescopes to see one?
> >>
> >>The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
> >>that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were
> >>not for such *mechanisms* there would be no life on
> >>our planet.
> >
> >What is God?
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
> >
> Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV)
nothing but a book of myths?
--
JD
"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 11, 2017, 9:14:32 PM2/11/17
to
In article <e9au9cd55vhiskkqj...@4ax.com>,
Oh, lookee, Gordon's trying to be nasty.
And failing as he does with everything else he posts.
And failing as he does with everything else he posts.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 11, 2017, 9:16:33 PM2/11/17
to
In article <nsru9c98n30d4dml7...@4ax.com>,
Thank you for confessing that no god had anything to do with the bible,
that it was written by men who had no idea how the world works.
that it was written by men who had no idea how the world works.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 11, 2017, 9:18:28 PM2/11/17
to
In article <qtfv9chldvq46gc81...@4ax.com>,
Hmmm, if we can't see radio waves then what are all those dishes doing
out there?
out there?
Smiler
Feb 11, 2017, 9:58:39 PM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:18:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <qtfv9chldvq46gc81...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
<snip>
> In article <qtfv9chldvq46gc81...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>> >How did waves outside our visible range come to be?
>> >
>> Numerous processes produce waves such as this, but they are not visible
>> and are not referred to as light. No one can see gravity waves or radio
>> waves, etc., for example.
>
> Hmmm, if we can't see radio waves then what are all those dishes doing
> out there?
"They are only pretend. They don't do anything."
<\>
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 10:43:59 PM2/11/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:18:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 11, 2017, 10:45:16 PM2/11/17
to
Kadaitcha Man
Feb 11, 2017, 11:06:01 PM2/11/17
to
Jeanne Douglas, thou whoreson zed, thou unnecessary letter. Ye are a
dull drayman, a biting bug-riddled foul deformity, a rancorous
gasblower, a wood-headed dotard, ye grovelled:
You fucking idiot. You cannot see radio waves, irrespective of the
dishes being there.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
dull drayman, a biting bug-riddled foul deformity, a rancorous
gasblower, a wood-headed dotard, ye grovelled:
dishes being there.
--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm
David Canzi
Feb 12, 2017, 12:31:13 AM2/12/17
to
On 02/11/17 03:40, Andrew wrote:
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
>
> "Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
>
>> Entropy of the universe as a whole increases, but entropy can be, and
>> frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
>> elsewhere.
>
> Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
>
There is no clause in the second law of thermodynamics exempting
>> frequently is, redistributed, being lowered in one place and increased
>> elsewhere.
>
> Only if there is some *mechanism* that would cause it to do so.
>
some set of mechanisms from the second law. The second law
doesn't say what you need it to say, so you make something up
that sounds enough like the second law that you can hope people
won't notice the substitution.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go.
Irreverend Dave
Feb 12, 2017, 1:04:56 AM2/12/17
to
bigger tree!
The creationist entropy argument was debunked years ago.
Give it up Andrew.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 12, 2017, 1:35:45 AM2/12/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
a thought to propagate from one side of God to the other.
That could account for why God seems to be always confused.
>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>to perceive everything that happens.
How do you know these things?
>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
upwards?
>He is aware of every bird that falls.
That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>>
>>>>Arrogant!
>>>>
>>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>>useless without optical light.
>>
>>The following video explains it all.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>>
>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
If you watched it you would have seen that it is very funny and true.
Here is another that you will enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>formed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>formed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>here?
>>
>>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>
>God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
>universe/multiverse
I can see a problem with that. It would take millions of years for
>>>>
>>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>here?
>>
>>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>
>God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
>universe/multiverse
a thought to propagate from one side of God to the other.
That could account for why God seems to be always confused.
>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>to perceive everything that happens.
>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
upwards?
>He is aware of every bird that falls.
Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>>
>>>>Arrogant!
>>>>
>>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>>useless without optical light.
>>
>>The following video explains it all.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>>
>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
Here is another that you will enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 12, 2017, 2:30:36 AM2/12/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>formed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>formed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>here?
>>
>>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>
>God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
>universe/multiverse
>>>>
>>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>here?
>>
>>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>
>God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
>universe/multiverse
I can see a problem with that. It would take millions of years for
a thought to propagate from one side of God to the other.
That could account for why God seems to be always confused.
a thought to propagate from one side of God to the other.
That could account for why God seems to be always confused.
>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>to perceive everything that happens.
>to perceive everything that happens.
How do you know these things?
>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
upwards?
our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
upwards?
>He is aware of every bird that falls.
That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
he would have time to use his power for good?
Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>>
>>>>Arrogant!
>>>>
>>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>>useless without optical light.
>>
>>The following video explains it all.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>>
>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
>>>>
>>>>Arrogant!
>>>>
>>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>>useless without optical light.
>>
>>The following video explains it all.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>>
>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
If you watched it you would have seen that it is very funny and true.
Here is another that you will enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Here is another that you will enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 6:00:53 AM2/12/17
to
they don't realise just how transparently dishonest or how ignorant
they are.
Gordon
Feb 12, 2017, 8:05:39 AM2/12/17
to
electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light,
which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of
sight.
If you still don't understand what the word light means, take a look
at this web site for a more thorough definition;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light
Radio frequency radiation is usually outside the normal range of
frequencies/wave lengths that we refer to as light. Those dishes you
mention are designed to receive and process radiation that is outside
the frequency/wave length of visible light. Gordon
Gordon
Feb 12, 2017, 8:23:40 AM2/12/17
to
way! Call it halfwitty or some such.
duke
Feb 12, 2017, 8:33:10 AM2/12/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:09:50 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>been able to overcome.
>
>Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>exclusive concepts.
>
>If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>then evolution must be impossible.
>
>The very terms themselves express contradictory
>concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>
>Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>science can prove anything, that the universe had
>a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>the universe could not have begun itself.
>
>The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>the beginning God created the heavens and the
>earth." ~ H.Morris
AMEN!!
>"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>been able to overcome.
>
>Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>exclusive concepts.
>
>If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>then evolution must be impossible.
>
>The very terms themselves express contradictory
>concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>
>Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>science can prove anything, that the universe had
>a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>the universe could not have begun itself.
>
>The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>the beginning God created the heavens and the
>earth." ~ H.Morris
>When we consider the laws of thermodynamics
>and origins, the above can be the only possible
>conclusion for the rational mind. Glory to God.
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrew
Feb 12, 2017, 8:35:30 AM2/12/17
to
"Irreverend Dave" wrote in message news:XnsA71AB11D4...@213.239.209.88...
> "Andrew" wrote:
Only because it has a genetic program that enables it
to do so.
> The creationist entropy argument was debunked
> years ago.
Apparently not.
> Give it up Andrew.
You are so funny!
> "Andrew" wrote:
to do so.
> The creationist entropy argument was debunked
> years ago.
> Give it up Andrew.
You are so funny!
Gordon
Feb 12, 2017, 8:35:51 AM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:36:00 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
entanglements interact at great distances, instantaneously. That is
they are not restricted to the speed of light. If the mind of God is
comprised of something similar, his thoughts could travel across the
entire cosmos, and even throughout the multiverse, instantly.
Gordon
assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
<Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>
>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>
>>>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>>here?
>>>
>>>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>>
>>God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>>light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
>>universe/multiverse
>
>I can see a problem with that. It would take millions of years for
>a thought to propagate from one side of God to the other.
>That could account for why God seems to be always confused.
>
Are you familiar with the idea of quantum entanglements? These
>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>
>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>
>>>>>That means God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>God doesn't need photons to give Him light. He isn't a physical,
>>>>carnal being such as we are. Do you get the light of what I'm saying
>>>>here?
>>>
>>>You are saying God has no way to understand us.
>>>
>>God understands us perfectly but He does not rely upon visible range
>>light to see us. He exists everywhere throughout the
>>universe/multiverse
>
>I can see a problem with that. It would take millions of years for
>a thought to propagate from one side of God to the other.
>That could account for why God seems to be always confused.
>
entanglements interact at great distances, instantaneously. That is
they are not restricted to the speed of light. If the mind of God is
comprised of something similar, his thoughts could travel across the
entire cosmos, and even throughout the multiverse, instantly.
Gordon
>
>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>to perceive everything that happens.
>
>How do you know these things?
>
It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>to perceive everything that happens.
>
>How do you know these things?
>
assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
>
>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>
>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>upwards?
>
>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>
>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>he would have time to use his power for good?
>
God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>
>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>upwards?
>
>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>
>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>he would have time to use his power for good?
>
mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
Gordon
Feb 12, 2017, 8:44:02 AM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
form of our miscreant behavior. Satan is the chief honcho in these
matters. Gordon
<Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>
>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>
I don't see where you get this idea. God is not responsible for any
>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>
>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>
form of our miscreant behavior. Satan is the chief honcho in these
matters. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 9:05:24 AM2/12/17
to
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 9:08:17 AM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:35:49 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
WHAT FUCKING MIND OF WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 9:09:20 AM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>>
>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>
>I don't see where you get this idea. God is not responsible for any
>form of our miscreant behavior. Satan is the chief honcho in these
>matters. Gordon
WHAT FUCKING GOD AND WHAT FUCKING SATAN, imbecile?
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>>
>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>
>I don't see where you get this idea. God is not responsible for any
>form of our miscreant behavior. Satan is the chief honcho in these
>matters. Gordon
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 10:03:41 AM2/12/17
to
In article <aip0achppkgbgg3s9...@4ax.com>,
cause trouble. And your god gets his jollies watching all the people
suffer. After all, this is the same god who makes a bet with the devil
and watches Job suffer horrible things; that must have been the best fun
your god had in years and years.
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> >><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> >>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
> >>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
> >>>>>>formed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
> >>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
> >
> >They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
> >
> I don't see where you get this idea. God is not responsible for any
> form of our miscreant behavior. Satan is the chief honcho in these
> matters. Gordon
Bullshit. Your god created your satan and sent him into the world to
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> >><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> >>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
> >>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
> >>>>>>formed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
> >>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
> >
> >They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
> >
> I don't see where you get this idea. God is not responsible for any
> form of our miscreant behavior. Satan is the chief honcho in these
> matters. Gordon
cause trouble. And your god gets his jollies watching all the people
suffer. After all, this is the same god who makes a bet with the devil
and watches Job suffer horrible things; that must have been the best fun
your god had in years and years.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 10:04:50 AM2/12/17
to
In article <cjo0ac5efnbu7pa5m...@4ax.com>,
Enough to know that your attempts to use them as justification for your
god proves what an idiot and liar you are. And that the person you lie
to most is yourself if you have to twist yourself into such a tight
pretzel to keep any doubts from your mind.
god proves what an idiot and liar you are. And that the person you lie
to most is yourself if you have to twist yourself into such a tight
pretzel to keep any doubts from your mind.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 10:05:48 AM2/12/17
to
In article <jco0actah1o9p5g4g...@4ax.com>,
Ahhh, poor Gordie has no sense of humor.
It wasn't hilarious, Christopher, but it was amusing. I chuckled.
It wasn't hilarious, Christopher, but it was amusing. I chuckled.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 10:09:15 AM2/12/17
to
In article <33n0act46dumtm0c4...@4ax.com>,
If we mean visible light, we say visible light (or it's obvious within
the context). And our perception only of it is due to the inadequate
"design" of our eye. But we see in pretty much every wavelength of light
with our tech.
the context). And our perception only of it is due to the inadequate
"design" of our eye. But we see in pretty much every wavelength of light
with our tech.
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 11:33:20 AM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:05:42 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
Thanks.
But then Gordon is a moron.
But then Gordon is a moron.
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 11:34:40 AM2/12/17
to
stupidity?
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 12, 2017, 1:57:30 PM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:35:49 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
The multiverse is no more scientific than your God.
Evolution is not an intelligent process.
>>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>>to perceive everything that happens.
>>
>>How do you know these things?
>>
>It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
>This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
The bible describes God as having the simple mind of the goat herders
that created it.
>>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>>
>>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>>upwards?
I'd really like to know.
>>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>>
>>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>>he would have time to use his power for good?
>>
>God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
Not instantly. It would take millions of years for a thought to
propagate from one side of God's mind to the other.
>>>>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Arrogant!
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>>>>useless without optical light.
>>>>
>>>>The following video explains it all.
>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
I 'd like to hear your thoughts on the video.
>>>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
>>
>>If you watched it you would have seen that it is very funny and true.
>>
>>Here is another that you will enjoy.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that one too.
Evolution is not an intelligent process.
>>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>>to perceive everything that happens.
>>
>>How do you know these things?
>>
>It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
>This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
that created it.
>>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>>
>>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>>upwards?
>>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>>
>>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>>he would have time to use his power for good?
>>
>God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
propagate from one side of God's mind to the other.
>>>>>>4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Arrogant!
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why would this be arrogant? God knew that His creation would be
>>>>>useless without optical light.
>>>>
>>>>The following video explains it all.
>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>>>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
>>
>>If you watched it you would have seen that it is very funny and true.
>>
>>Here is another that you will enjoy.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 12, 2017, 2:12:18 PM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
absolute power.
>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
I thought you said God created everything.
>Satan is the chief honcho in these matters.
I could say you are evil for trying to blame a created being who
could only be the way God made him. Satan is just as much a
victim of God as are we.
For that reason I think we should leave Satan out of this discussion.
We talked about this before.
God should be held responsible for everything he created which
is everything.
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>>
>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>
>I don't see where you get this idea.
No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:18:43 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Those first few verses of Genesis could not have been talking about
>>>>>>>this planet earth we live on. The sun and this planet hadn't yet been
>>>>>>>formed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just my thinking, but it does seem to fit much better than a simple
>>>>>>>literal interpretation of those Bible passages. Gordon
>>
>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>
>I don't see where you get this idea.
must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
absolute power.
>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>Satan is the chief honcho in these matters.
could only be the way God made him. Satan is just as much a
victim of God as are we.
For that reason I think we should leave Satan out of this discussion.
We talked about this before.
God should be held responsible for everything he created which
is everything.
Gordon
Feb 12, 2017, 6:43:59 PM2/12/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
of sovereignty. This sets their thinking and actions apart from God's
control. Gordon
sovereign will. Is this what you would prefer? Gordon
<Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>
>>I don't see where you get this idea.
>
>No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
>absolute power.
>
>>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>
>I thought you said God created everything.
>
Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
>>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>
>>I don't see where you get this idea.
>
>No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
>absolute power.
>
>>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>
>I thought you said God created everything.
>
of sovereignty. This sets their thinking and actions apart from God's
control. Gordon
>
>>Satan is the chief honcho in these matters.
>
>I could say you are evil for trying to blame a created being who
>could only be the way God made him. Satan is just as much a
>victim of God as are we.
>For that reason I think we should leave Satan out of this discussion.
>We talked about this before.
>
>God should be held responsible for everything he created which
>is everything.
>
If this were so, none of us would ever have anything approaching
>>Satan is the chief honcho in these matters.
>
>I could say you are evil for trying to blame a created being who
>could only be the way God made him. Satan is just as much a
>victim of God as are we.
>For that reason I think we should leave Satan out of this discussion.
>We talked about this before.
>
>God should be held responsible for everything he created which
>is everything.
>
sovereign will. Is this what you would prefer? Gordon
Gordon
Feb 12, 2017, 6:55:14 PM2/12/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:57:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Both are scientific ideas or theorems. They seem to merit further
studies but may never be proven. Gordon
in a format that they could understand and grasp the embedded meanings
from. We don't have any difficulty tuning our thinking back to
something at the level of those goat herders, but they could never
have comprehended God's information had He given it to them in our
modern scientific form. Would this have been equally fair to all of
us? Gordon
there is nothing so insignificant that God is not aware of it. It
tells us that God's awareness far exceeds that of any of us. You may
not know when a hair falls from your head but God does...not only a
hair from your head but any hair from the head of any and all of us.
Read this and other Bible passages as a simple story that provides a
complex level of information to us if we want to receive this complex
meaning, or if we choose to reject it we have that option. Gordon
studies but may never be proven. Gordon
>
>>>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>>>to perceive everything that happens.
>>>
>>>How do you know these things?
>>>
>>It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>>assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
>>This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
>
>The bible describes God as having the simple mind of the goat herders
>that created it.
>
Rephrase this to read God's information was given to primitive humans
>>>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>>>to perceive everything that happens.
>>>
>>>How do you know these things?
>>>
>>It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>>assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
>>This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
>
>The bible describes God as having the simple mind of the goat herders
>that created it.
>
in a format that they could understand and grasp the embedded meanings
from. We don't have any difficulty tuning our thinking back to
something at the level of those goat herders, but they could never
have comprehended God's information had He given it to them in our
modern scientific form. Would this have been equally fair to all of
us? Gordon
>>>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>>>
>>>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>>>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>>>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>>>upwards?
>
>I'd really like to know.
>
Don't blow a fuse about things like this. The embedded meaning is that
>>>
>>>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>>>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>>>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>>>upwards?
>
>I'd really like to know.
>
there is nothing so insignificant that God is not aware of it. It
tells us that God's awareness far exceeds that of any of us. You may
not know when a hair falls from your head but God does...not only a
hair from your head but any hair from the head of any and all of us.
Read this and other Bible passages as a simple story that provides a
complex level of information to us if we want to receive this complex
meaning, or if we choose to reject it we have that option. Gordon
>
>>>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>>>
>>>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>>>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>>>he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>
>>God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>>mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
>
>Not instantly. It would take millions of years for a thought to
>propagate from one side of God's mind to the other.
>
Not at quantum entanglement speed!
>>>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>>>
>>>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>>>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>>>he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>
>>God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>>mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
>
>Not instantly. It would take millions of years for a thought to
>propagate from one side of God's mind to the other.
>
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 12, 2017, 7:05:29 PM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:43:58 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
And when you can't, keep your stupidity where it belongs.
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>>
>>>I don't see where you get this idea.
>>
>>No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>>must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
>>absolute power.
>>
>>>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>>
>>I thought you said God created everything.
>>
>Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
Prove it, liar.
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>>
>>>I don't see where you get this idea.
>>
>>No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>>must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
>>absolute power.
>>
>>>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>>
>>I thought you said God created everything.
>>
>Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
And when you can't, keep your stupidity where it belongs.
Smiler
Feb 12, 2017, 9:13:44 PM2/12/17
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:45:07 -0600, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:14:26 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <e9au9cd55vhiskkqj...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:13:50 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
>>> <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:04:00 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:14 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> >><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>> astronomical telescopes to see one?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
>>> >>>>that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were not for
>>> >>>>such *mechanisms* there would be no life on our planet.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>What is God? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
>>> >>>
>>> >>Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV) And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words
>>> >>are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be
>>> >>purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do
>>> >>wickedly:
>>> >>and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall
>>> >>understand.
>>> >
>>> >How the fuck does citing the mythology from somebody else's religion,
>>> >answer the question which was asked in the real world, imbecile?
>>> >
>>> My dog doesn't understand this, either. Gordon
>>
>>
>>Oh, lookee, Gordon's trying to be nasty.
>>
>>And failing as he does with everything else he posts.
>
> He and his dog have the same IQ.
He must have a particularly dumb dog, then.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:14:26 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <e9au9cd55vhiskkqj...@4ax.com>,
>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:13:50 -0600, Christopher A. Lee
>>> <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 07:04:00 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:14 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> >><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:39:03 -0800, "Andrew"
>>> >>><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message
>>> >>>>news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> the biosphere is so far away from being a closed system it needs
>>> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:39:03 -0800, "Andrew"
>>> >>><andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>"Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message
>>> >>>>news:part1of1.1.N...@ue.ph...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> astronomical telescopes to see one?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>The biosphere is filled with God-given *mechanisms*
>>> >>>>that allow entropy to decrease temporarily. If it were not for
>>> >>>>such *mechanisms* there would be no life on our planet.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>What is God? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
>>> >>>
>>> >>Daniel 12:9-10 (KJV) And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words
>>> >>are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be
>>> >>purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do
>>> >>wickedly:
>>> >>and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall
>>> >>understand.
>>> >
>>> >How the fuck does citing the mythology from somebody else's religion,
>>> >answer the question which was asked in the real world, imbecile?
>>> >
>>> My dog doesn't understand this, either. Gordon
>>
>>
>>Oh, lookee, Gordon's trying to be nasty.
>>
>>And failing as he does with everything else he posts.
>
> He and his dog have the same IQ.
He must have a particularly dumb dog, then.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Smiler
Feb 12, 2017, 9:24:59 PM2/12/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:57:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:35:49 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:35:49 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>The following video explains it all.
>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo
>
> I 'd like to hear your thoughts on the video.
>
>>>>If this entertains you I'm amazed.
>>>
>>>If you watched it you would have seen that it is very funny and true.
>>>
>>>Here is another that you will enjoy.
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
>
> I'd like to hear your thoughts on that one too.
aaa
Feb 12, 2017, 9:45:11 PM2/12/17
to
On 02/12/2017 02:03 PM, Irreverend Dave wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2017, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2017, "Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "Irreverend Dave" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA71969030...@213.239.209.88...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>>>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>>>> been able to overcome.
>>>>
>>>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>>>> exclusive concepts.
>>>>
>>>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>>>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>>>
>>>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>>>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>>>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>>>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>>>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>>>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>>>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>>>
>>>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>>>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>>>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>>>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>>>
>>>
>>> Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from
>>> the Sun, are you Andrew?
>>
>>>
>>>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>>>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>>>> been able to overcome.
>>>>
>>>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>>>> exclusive concepts.
>>>>
>>>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>>>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>>>
>>>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>>>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>>>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>>>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>>>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>>>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>>>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>>>
>>>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>>>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>>>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>>>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>>>
>>>
>>> Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from
>>> the Sun, are you Andrew?
>>
>> Leave your car our in the hot sun for twenty years
>> and what will you see? Entropy happened. Amen.
>
> Leave a tree out in the sun for twenty years and what will you see? A
> bigger tree!
That's assuming the conclusion. Only life can preserve energy to reverse
>> and what will you see? Entropy happened. Amen.
>
> Leave a tree out in the sun for twenty years and what will you see? A
> bigger tree!
entropy. Except the energy absorbed by life, all energy coming from the
sun only creases the entropy of the earth, meaning all wasted, by
raising the temperature of the surface of earth. Earth can not store the
energy of sunlight. Only life can do that with photosynthesis.
>
> The creationist entropy argument was debunked years ago.
>
>
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 12, 2017, 10:05:23 PM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:43:58 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
sovereignty?
>>>Satan is the chief honcho in these matters.
>>
>>I could say you are evil for trying to blame a created being who
>>could only be the way God made him. Satan is just as much a
>>victim of God as are we.
>>For that reason I think we should leave Satan out of this discussion.
>>We talked about this before.
>>
>>God should be held responsible for everything he created which
>>is everything.
>>
>If this were so, none of us would ever have anything approaching
>sovereign will. Is this what you would prefer? Gordon
Are you saying God would punish us if we call upon him to
accept responsibility for his actions?
How could we trust such a God to give us true free will?
True sovereign will could not work in heaven.
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>>
>>>I don't see where you get this idea.
>>
>>No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>>must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
>>absolute power.
>>
>>>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>>
>>I thought you said God created everything.
>>
>Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
>of sovereignty. This sets their thinking and actions apart from God's
>control. Gordon
You say it was God who granted His created beings a level of
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>>>
>>>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
>>>>
>>>I don't see where you get this idea.
>>
>>No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
>>must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
>>absolute power.
>>
>>>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
>>
>>I thought you said God created everything.
>>
>Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
>of sovereignty. This sets their thinking and actions apart from God's
>control. Gordon
sovereignty?
>>>Satan is the chief honcho in these matters.
>>
>>I could say you are evil for trying to blame a created being who
>>could only be the way God made him. Satan is just as much a
>>victim of God as are we.
>>For that reason I think we should leave Satan out of this discussion.
>>We talked about this before.
>>
>>God should be held responsible for everything he created which
>>is everything.
>>
>If this were so, none of us would ever have anything approaching
>sovereign will. Is this what you would prefer? Gordon
accept responsibility for his actions?
How could we trust such a God to give us true free will?
True sovereign will could not work in heaven.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 12, 2017, 11:00:56 PM2/12/17
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 17:55:13 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:57:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>The multiverse is no more scientific than your God.
>>
>>>>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>>>>to perceive everything that happens.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know these things?
>>>>
>>>It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>>>assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
>>>This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
>>
>>The bible describes God as having the simple mind of the goat herders
>>that created it.
>>
>Rephrase this to read God's information was given to primitive humans
>in a format that they could understand and grasp the embedded meanings
>from.
Only if the embedded meaning is that God is deceiving us.
>We don't have any difficulty tuning our thinking back to
>something at the level of those goat herders, but they could never
>have comprehended God's information had He given it to them in our
>modern scientific form. Would this have been equally fair to all of
>us? Gordon
I think Mark 12:24 applies here.
Do you really think our creator is incapable of giving us life saving
and life enhancing information? Is it really better that people
continue to die out of ignorance?
Can you understand why I say you have no empathy?
>>>>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>>>>
>>>>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>>>>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>>>>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>>>>upwards?
>>
>>I'd really like to know.
>>
>Don't blow a fuse about things like this. The embedded meaning is that
>there is nothing so insignificant that God is not aware of it. It
>tells us that God's awareness far exceeds that of any of us. You may
>not know when a hair falls from your head but God does...not only a
>hair from your head but any hair from the head of any and all of us.
>
>Read this and other Bible passages as a simple story that provides a
>complex level of information to us if we want to receive this complex
>meaning, or if we choose to reject it we have that option. Gordon
You do err, because you know not the scriptures, neither the power
of God.
>>>>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>>>>
>>>>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>>>>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>>>>he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>>
>>>God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>>>mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
>>
>>Not instantly. It would take millions of years for a thought to
>>propagate from one side of God's mind to the other.
>>
>Not at quantum entanglement speed!
You have been watching too much StarTrek.
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 05:57:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>The multiverse is no more scientific than your God.
>>
>Both are scientific ideas or theorems. They seem to merit further
>studies but may never be proven. Gordon
Neither the multiverse nor your God have any evidence.
>studies but may never be proven. Gordon
>>>>>and by means that we don't yet understand, is able
>>>>>to perceive everything that happens.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know these things?
>>>>
>>>It isn't a matter of absolute knowledge. It is a matter of my current
>>>assessments based upon that which I do know and can piece together.
>>>This is somewhat like "knowing" my wife loves me. Gordon
>>
>>The bible describes God as having the simple mind of the goat herders
>>that created it.
>>
>Rephrase this to read God's information was given to primitive humans
>in a format that they could understand and grasp the embedded meanings
>from.
>We don't have any difficulty tuning our thinking back to
>something at the level of those goat herders, but they could never
>have comprehended God's information had He given it to them in our
>modern scientific form. Would this have been equally fair to all of
>us? Gordon
Do you really think our creator is incapable of giving us life saving
and life enhancing information? Is it really better that people
continue to die out of ignorance?
Can you understand why I say you have no empathy?
>>>>>He is aware of every hair on our heads.
>>>>
>>>>The bible says our hairs are numbered. Does God renumber
>>>>our hairs every time one falls out or is replaced? If so are the
>>>>hairs renumbered from one or are new hairs renumbered ever
>>>>upwards?
>>
>>I'd really like to know.
>>
>Don't blow a fuse about things like this. The embedded meaning is that
>there is nothing so insignificant that God is not aware of it. It
>tells us that God's awareness far exceeds that of any of us. You may
>not know when a hair falls from your head but God does...not only a
>hair from your head but any hair from the head of any and all of us.
>
>Read this and other Bible passages as a simple story that provides a
>complex level of information to us if we want to receive this complex
>meaning, or if we choose to reject it we have that option. Gordon
of God.
>>>>>He is aware of every bird that falls.
>>>>
>>>>That's an odd thing for God to be aware of.
>>>>Do you think if God was not lumbered with so many petty things
>>>>he would have time to use his power for good?
>>>>
>>>God's mind is infinite. He cannot be "lumbered" with more than His
>>>mind can cope with, instantly. Gordon
>>
>>Not instantly. It would take millions of years for a thought to
>>propagate from one side of God's mind to the other.
>>
>Not at quantum entanglement speed!
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 11:02:24 PM2/12/17
to
In article <qrs1aclteg04ad7qb...@4ax.com>,
And when that becomes apparent, the hypotheses will be dropped.
Why haven't you dropped your belief in your god since there's never been
even a tiny piece of evidence to support its existence, not in thousands
of years.
Why haven't you dropped your belief in your god since there's never been
even a tiny piece of evidence to support its existence, not in thousands
of years.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 11:03:37 PM2/12/17
to
In article <mjs1acdbocjv0iat5...@4ax.com>,
has happened, is happening, and will happen. Since it purportedly knows
everything that WILL happen, there's no such thing as free will.
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> >><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
> >>>
> >>I don't see where you get this idea.
> >
> >No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
> >must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
> >absolute power.
> >
> >>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
> >
> >I thought you said God created everything.
> >
> Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
> of sovereignty. This sets their thinking and actions apart from God's
> control. Gordon
Your god is supposed to be omniscient, meaning it knows everything that
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:12:16 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:44:01 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:30:53 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
> >><Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:58:35 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>They also used "God" to represent the very worst of humanity.
> >>>
> >>I don't see where you get this idea.
> >
> >No one being could be as evil as the bible says God is, so God
> >must be a metaphor for how low a human can sink if given
> >absolute power.
> >
> >>God is not responsible for any form of our miscreant behavior.
> >
> >I thought you said God created everything.
> >
> Yes, God created everything then he granted His created beings a level
> of sovereignty. This sets their thinking and actions apart from God's
> control. Gordon
has happened, is happening, and will happen. Since it purportedly knows
everything that WILL happen, there's no such thing as free will.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 11:05:16 PM2/12/17
to
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 12, 2017, 11:05:33 PM2/12/17
to
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 13, 2017, 12:50:10 AM2/13/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:13:40 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
Man goes into the pub and sees Gordon playing chess with his dog....
"Wow, that's fantastic. A dog playing chess"
"Not really, I beat him two out of the last three games"
"Wow, that's fantastic. A dog playing chess"
"Not really, I beat him two out of the last three games"
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 13, 2017, 1:51:46 PM2/13/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:18:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <qtfv9chldvq46gc81...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:58:41 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:39:56 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:14:39 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>>> <Ba...@saymyname.com> wrote:
>> Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the
>> electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light,
>> which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of
>> sight.
>>
>> If you still don't understand what the word light means, take a look
>> at this web site for a more thorough definition;
>>
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light
>>
>> Radio frequency radiation is usually outside the normal range of
>> frequencies/wave lengths that we refer to as light. Those dishes you
>> mention are designed to receive and process radiation that is outside
>> the frequency/wave length of visible light. Gordon
>>
>
>Gordumb, I have a license which allows me to transmit EMF from "D.C. to
>> electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light,
>> which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of
>> sight.
>>
>> If you still don't understand what the word light means, take a look
>> at this web site for a more thorough definition;
>>
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light
>>
>> Radio frequency radiation is usually outside the normal range of
>> frequencies/wave lengths that we refer to as light. Those dishes you
>> mention are designed to receive and process radiation that is outside
>> the frequency/wave length of visible light. Gordon
>>
>
>light" ( yes the license allows me to use modulated or pulsed light beams
>via a laser. ) Stop talking about shit you don't understand.
Which means pretty well everything.
But he has some kind of imperative to tell us his mindless nonsense
even though it is irrelevant and off-topic - as well as false.
Religion does that to people.
And he's been doing this obsessively here for years, ever since he
posted as Antares, also for several years before that.
Religion makes people mentally ill.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 13, 2017, 4:05:43 PM2/13/17
to
Gordon
Feb 13, 2017, 5:17:08 PM2/13/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:18:27 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:18:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <qtfv9chldvq46gc81...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
<snip>
<no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:18:22 -0800, Jeanne Douglas
>> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <qtfv9chldvq46gc81...@4ax.com>,
>>> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Big Bang process had to move along to the level which allowed
>>>>>> atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
>>>>>> as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did waves outside our visible range come to be?
>>>>>
>>>> Numerous processes produce waves such as this, but they are not
>>>> visible and are not referred to as light. No one can see gravity waves
>>>> or radio waves, etc., for example.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, if we can't see radio waves then what are all those dishes doing
>>> out there?
>>>
>> Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the
>> electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light,
>> which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of
>> sight.
>>
>> If you still don't understand what the word light means, take a look
>> at this web site for a more thorough definition;
>>
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light
>>
>> Radio frequency radiation is usually outside the normal range of
>> frequencies/wave lengths that we refer to as light. Those dishes you
>> mention are designed to receive and process radiation that is outside
>> the frequency/wave length of visible light. Gordon
>>
>
>Gordumb, I have a license which allows me to transmit EMF from "D.C. to
>light" ( yes the license allows me to use modulated or pulsed light beams
>via a laser. ) Stop talking about shit you don't understand.
>
This thread was talking about the time of the creation, and the word
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Big Bang process had to move along to the level which allowed
>>>>>> atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
>>>>>> as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> How did waves outside our visible range come to be?
>>>>>
>>>> Numerous processes produce waves such as this, but they are not
>>>> visible and are not referred to as light. No one can see gravity waves
>>>> or radio waves, etc., for example.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, if we can't see radio waves then what are all those dishes doing
>>> out there?
>>>
>> Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the
>> electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light,
>> which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of
>> sight.
>>
>> If you still don't understand what the word light means, take a look
>> at this web site for a more thorough definition;
>>
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/light
>>
>> Radio frequency radiation is usually outside the normal range of
>> frequencies/wave lengths that we refer to as light. Those dishes you
>> mention are designed to receive and process radiation that is outside
>> the frequency/wave length of visible light. Gordon
>>
>
>Gordumb, I have a license which allows me to transmit EMF from "D.C. to
>light" ( yes the license allows me to use modulated or pulsed light beams
>via a laser. ) Stop talking about shit you don't understand.
>
"light" was in reference to what we now think of as optically visible
light. Gordon
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 13, 2017, 5:39:22 PM2/13/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:17:05 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
And Biblical creation is complete bullshit which mobody in their
right mind takes seriously.
wrote:
right mind takes seriously.
Siri Cruise
Feb 13, 2017, 6:08:37 PM2/13/17
to
In article <1tb4ach0afn4392eb...@4ax.com>,
photon from electron shells. What changed was when the universe was rarefied
enough that most photons had unobstructed paths.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Big Bang process had to move along to the level which allowed
> >>>>>> atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
> >>>>>> as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
> >>>>>>> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Big Bang process had to move along to the level which allowed
> >>>>>> atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
> >>>>>> as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
> This thread was talking about the time of the creation, and the word
> "light" was in reference to what we now think of as optically visible
> light. Gordon
Blackbody radiation is based on thermal vibration of particles not spectrum
> "light" was in reference to what we now think of as optically visible
> light. Gordon
photon from electron shells. What changed was when the universe was rarefied
enough that most photons had unobstructed paths.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Gordon
Feb 13, 2017, 7:15:21 PM2/13/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:08:16 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <1tb4ach0afn4392eb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The Big Bang process had to move along to the level which allowed
>> >>>>>> atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
>> >>>>>> as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
>
>> This thread was talking about the time of the creation, and the word
>> "light" was in reference to what we now think of as optically visible
>> light. Gordon
>
>Blackbody radiation is based on thermal vibration of particles not spectrum
>photon from electron shells. What changed was when the universe was rarefied
>enough that most photons had unobstructed paths.
>
There's a bit more to this than you've outlined. Photons are emitted
when atoms with valence electrons are bumped or otherwise agitated.
The valence electron will be elevated to a higher state then when it
drops back to its stable state it emits a photon.
At the time of creation there was just a point that began to expand
and as it expanded and cooled down a bit subatomic particles began to
form. These particles then merged into the first protons, neutrons and
electrons which became the first atoms. Then there was light! Gordon
wrote:
>In article <1tb4ach0afn4392eb...@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The Big Bang process had to move along to the level which allowed
>> >>>>>> atoms with valence electrons to form. This was the beginning of light
>> >>>>>> as we think of it...an optical response to light photons.
>
>> This thread was talking about the time of the creation, and the word
>> "light" was in reference to what we now think of as optically visible
>> light. Gordon
>
>Blackbody radiation is based on thermal vibration of particles not spectrum
>photon from electron shells. What changed was when the universe was rarefied
>enough that most photons had unobstructed paths.
>
when atoms with valence electrons are bumped or otherwise agitated.
The valence electron will be elevated to a higher state then when it
drops back to its stable state it emits a photon.
At the time of creation there was just a point that began to expand
and as it expanded and cooled down a bit subatomic particles began to
form. These particles then merged into the first protons, neutrons and
electrons which became the first atoms. Then there was light! Gordon
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 13, 2017, 7:26:12 PM2/13/17
to
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:15:19 -0600, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:
Do you really think the men that created God knew those things?
wrote:
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 13, 2017, 7:43:59 PM2/13/17
to
wrote about.
Irreverend Dave
Feb 13, 2017, 10:50:56 PM2/13/17
to
> news:XnsA71AB11D4...@213.239.209.88...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Irreverend Dave" wrote:
> to do so.
In other words, because it's alive. So your car sitting in the sun
analogy doesn't work.
>
>> The creationist entropy argument was debunked
>> years ago.
>
> Apparently not.
Well, not in the creationist community, but in the science community as a
whole, yes it has.
>
>> Give it up Andrew.
>
> You are so funny!
You are a joke!
--
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly
teaches me to suspect that my own is also. - Mark Twain
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Irreverend Dave" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>>>>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>>>>> been able to overcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>>>>> exclusive concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>>>>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>>>>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>>>>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>>>>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>>>>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>>>>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>>>>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>>>>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>>>>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>>>>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from
>>>> the Sun, are you Andrew?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable
>>>>> barrier which no evolutionary mechanism has ever
>>>>> been able to overcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually
>>>>> exclusive concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
>>>>> then evolution must be impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The very terms themselves express contradictory
>>>>> concepts. The word "evolution" is derived from
>>>>> a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
>>>>> is that of an outward progressing spiral.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as
>>>>> science can prove anything, that the universe had
>>>>> a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
>>>>> the universe could not have begun itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most scientific and logical conclusion to
>>>>> which we could possibly come to is that: "In
>>>>> the beginning God created the heavens and the
>>>>> earth." ~ H.Morris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still not getting that the Earth receives energy from
>>>> the Sun, are you Andrew?
>>>
>>> Leave your car our in the hot sun for twenty years
>>> and what will you see? Entropy happened. Amen.
>>
>> Leave a tree out in the sun for twenty years and what
>> will you see? A bigger tree!
>
> Only because it has a genetic program that enables it
>>> and what will you see? Entropy happened. Amen.
>>
>> Leave a tree out in the sun for twenty years and what
>> will you see? A bigger tree!
>
> to do so.
In other words, because it's alive. So your car sitting in the sun
analogy doesn't work.
>
>> The creationist entropy argument was debunked
>> years ago.
>
Well, not in the creationist community, but in the science community as a
whole, yes it has.
>
>> Give it up Andrew.
>
> You are so funny!
You are a joke!
--
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly
teaches me to suspect that my own is also. - Mark Twain
aaa
Feb 14, 2017, 1:49:22 AM2/14/17
to
things?
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 2:22:39 AM2/14/17
to
the solid dome that covers the flat earth.
aaa
Feb 14, 2017, 2:25:11 AM2/14/17
to
view, there is no free will. The good will be proven to be good. The
evil will be proven to evil. Form man's point of view, there is a free
will because all must choose to know good and evil. So free will is only
an illusion of this physical existence. To overcome such illusion, we
have to follow God's will by following the faith in our own heart.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 2:43:26 AM2/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:25:10 +0800, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
That's because God determined how our brain worked.
>The good will be proven to be good. The evil will be proven to evil.
God already knows who he made good and who he made evil.
>From man's point of view, there is a free
>To overcome such illusion, we
>have to follow God's will by following the faith in our own heart.
The faith that told a woman to drown her five children.
The faith that fuels ISAS.
You are evil in that you have no empathy but you didn't choose
that. God have you a faulty brain.
>The good will be proven to be good. The evil will be proven to evil.
>From man's point of view, there is a free
>will because all must choose to know good and evil. So free will is only
>an illusion of this physical existence.
Too bad physical is all we have.
>an illusion of this physical existence.
>To overcome such illusion, we
>have to follow God's will by following the faith in our own heart.
The faith that fuels ISAS.
You are evil in that you have no empathy but you didn't choose
that. God have you a faulty brain.
aaa
Feb 14, 2017, 2:53:39 AM2/14/17
to
modern science more than 2000 years ago. You were quite scientifically
deficient back then.
aaa
Feb 14, 2017, 2:59:52 AM2/14/17
to
the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
enabled us to understand everything. It's a study of what exists within
us. It's called philosophy and spirituality.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 4:42:25 AM2/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:53:35 +0800, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
>On 14/02/2017 03:23 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:49:20 +0800, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
>>
So was God apparently!
Have you noticed that God only knows what the people of the time know?
>On 14/02/2017 03:23 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:49:20 +0800, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
>>
Have you noticed that God only knows what the people of the time know?
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 4:49:42 AM2/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:59:47 +0800, aaa <j...@somewhere.org> wrote:
We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
including our intelligence.
Why does a child think and act like a child?
Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>We can better understand the physical world and
>the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>enabled us to understand everything.
We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>spirituality.
What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
Do you know what a savant is?
including our intelligence.
Why does a child think and act like a child?
Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>We can better understand the physical world and
>the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>enabled us to understand everything.
>It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>spirituality.
Do you know what a savant is?
Ed Cartwright
Feb 14, 2017, 5:02:30 AM2/14/17
to
In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
not a supportable claim.
> Why does a child think and act like a child?
> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>
>> We can better understand the physical world and
>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>> enabled us to understand everything.
>
> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
supportable claim.
>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>> spirituality.
>
> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
not a supportable claim.
> Why does a child think and act like a child?
> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>
>> We can better understand the physical world and
>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>> enabled us to understand everything.
>
> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
supportable claim.
>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>> spirituality.
>
> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 5:16:27 AM2/14/17
to
>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>
>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>
>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>
>That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>supportable claim.
Why does a child think and act like a child?
Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>> spirituality.
>>
>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>
>Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
Why does a child think and act like a child?
Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>> Do you know what a savant is?
Do you know what a savant is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Ed Cartwright
Feb 14, 2017, 5:32:39 AM2/14/17
to
In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>
>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>
>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>
>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>> supportable claim.
>
> Why does a child think and act like a child?
> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
if they were facts.
>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>> spirituality.
>>>
>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>
>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>
> Why does a child think and act like a child?
> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
Ditto.
>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>
> Do you know what a savant is?
Ditto.
Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>
>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>
>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>
>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>> supportable claim.
>
> Why does a child think and act like a child?
> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
if they were facts.
>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>> spirituality.
>>>
>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>
>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>
> Why does a child think and act like a child?
> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>
> Do you know what a savant is?
Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 6:27:21 AM2/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:32:35 -0800, Ed Cartwright
reason for denying known and proven facts.
>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>>
>>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>>
>>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>>
>>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>>> supportable claim.
>>
>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>
>Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
>if they were facts.
A child think and acts like a child because their brain is not
fully developed.
A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because
their brain is not fully developed.
>>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>>> spirituality.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>>
>>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>>
>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>
>Ditto.
How your brain functions determines how intelligent you are.
Do you know what an MRI is?
>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>
>> Do you know what a savant is?
>
>Ditto.
>
>Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
>then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
>context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
>assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
A savant is a person who has a low IQ but can do something
mentally that a normal person can't, such as remembering
every detail of every baseball match or doing complicated
calculations in their head (brain) immediately.
There is really no point in pretending you don't know the brain
contains everything that makes "you" and that you will cease to
exist when your brain activity ceases.
While we don't know everything about the brain we do know that
brain damage or drugs may change a person's thinking completely.
A normal trustworthy family man suddenly took an interest in porn
including child porn. He had a brain scan and they found a tumor
which when removed made his behaviour back to that of the normal
family man.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
<ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:02:27 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> wrote:
>>>> We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>>>> including our intelligence.
>>>
>>> That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
>>> not a supportable claim.
>>
>> Do you believe in a God that created everything?
>
>That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
If you do believe in a God that created everything that would be your
>In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:02:27 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> wrote:
>>>> We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>>>> including our intelligence.
>>>
>>> That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
>>> not a supportable claim.
>>
>> Do you believe in a God that created everything?
>
>That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
reason for denying known and proven facts.
>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>>
>>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>>
>>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>>
>>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>>> supportable claim.
>>
>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>
>Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
>if they were facts.
fully developed.
A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because
their brain is not fully developed.
>>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>>> spirituality.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>>
>>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>>
>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>
>Ditto.
Do you know what an MRI is?
>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>
>> Do you know what a savant is?
>
>Ditto.
>
>Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
>then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
>context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
>assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
mentally that a normal person can't, such as remembering
every detail of every baseball match or doing complicated
calculations in their head (brain) immediately.
There is really no point in pretending you don't know the brain
contains everything that makes "you" and that you will cease to
exist when your brain activity ceases.
While we don't know everything about the brain we do know that
brain damage or drugs may change a person's thinking completely.
A normal trustworthy family man suddenly took an interest in porn
including child porn. He had a brain scan and they found a tumor
which when removed made his behaviour back to that of the normal
family man.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Ed Cartwright
Feb 14, 2017, 7:00:15 AM2/14/17
to
In <qcp5achkj2nn19o5s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
facts is to deny your made up facts because your made up facts are made
up. And if they are known and proven facts, you can post a quotes and
references from peer-reviewed journals, can't you? So, let's see these
proofs of your facts.
>>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>>>
>>>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>>>> supportable claim.
>>>
>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>
>> Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
>> if they were facts.
>
> A child think and acts like a child because their brain is not
> fully developed.
No shit?
> A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because
> their brain is not fully developed.
No doubt that's one of those proven facts of yours, so again, post a
quote and a reference from peer-reviewed journal stating that the brain
of people with Down syndrome is not fully developed. I will not accept
anything other than a direct quote using the word undeveloped in
relation the Down syndrome brain.
>>>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>>>> spirituality.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>>>
>>>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>>>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>>>
>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> How your brain functions determines how intelligent you are.
There are competing theories about the source of intelligence, not just
the one you're pushing.
> Do you know what an MRI is?
Oh, you're not one of those believers in correlation proves causation,
are you?
>>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>>
>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
>> then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
>> context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
>> assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
>
> A savant is a person who has a low IQ but can do something
> mentally that a normal person can't, such as remembering
> every detail of every baseball match or doing complicated
> calculations in their head (brain) immediately.
No shit?
> There is really no point in pretending you don't know the brain
> contains everything that makes "you" and that you will cease to
> exist when your brain activity ceases.
Don't try emotional tricks, they won't work. You need to provide
evidence for your claims. Though I won't be surprised if you can't.
> While we don't know everything about the brain we do know that
> brain damage or drugs may change a person's thinking completely.
You just blew your own claim out of the water. If it true that "we don't
know everything about the brain", which is an assertion of incomplete
knowledge, then it false that "we have a physical brain that contains
everything that makes us" because it asserts completeness of knowledge.
Besides, logic dictates we cannot know everything about the brain
because the brain is both the system under inspection and the system
performing the inspection. I suggest you read about incompleteness
theorem and what it means for the limits of knowledge.
You can't have it both ways, so let's have your scientific evidence to
support your claims:
1) We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
including our intelligence.
2) A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because their
> A normal trustworthy family man suddenly took an interest in porn
> including child porn. He had a brain scan and they found a tumor
> which when removed made his behaviour back to that of the normal
> family man.
So?
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:32:35 -0800, Ed Cartwright
> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:02:27 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>>>>> including our intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
>>>> not a supportable claim.
>>>
>>> Do you believe in a God that created everything?
>>
>> That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
>
> If you do believe in a God that created everything that would be your
> reason for denying known and proven facts.
There you go with your wrong assumptions again. To deny your made up
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:32:35 -0800, Ed Cartwright
> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:02:27 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>>>>> including our intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
>>>> not a supportable claim.
>>>
>>> Do you believe in a God that created everything?
>>
>> That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
>
> If you do believe in a God that created everything that would be your
> reason for denying known and proven facts.
facts is to deny your made up facts because your made up facts are made
up. And if they are known and proven facts, you can post a quotes and
references from peer-reviewed journals, can't you? So, let's see these
proofs of your facts.
>>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>>>
>>>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>>>> supportable claim.
>>>
>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>
>> Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
>> if they were facts.
>
> A child think and acts like a child because their brain is not
> fully developed.
> A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because
> their brain is not fully developed.
quote and a reference from peer-reviewed journal stating that the brain
of people with Down syndrome is not fully developed. I will not accept
anything other than a direct quote using the word undeveloped in
relation the Down syndrome brain.
>>>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>>>> spirituality.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>>>
>>>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>>>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>>>
>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> How your brain functions determines how intelligent you are.
the one you're pushing.
> Do you know what an MRI is?
are you?
>>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>>
>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
>> then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
>> context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
>> assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
>
> A savant is a person who has a low IQ but can do something
> mentally that a normal person can't, such as remembering
> every detail of every baseball match or doing complicated
> calculations in their head (brain) immediately.
> There is really no point in pretending you don't know the brain
> contains everything that makes "you" and that you will cease to
> exist when your brain activity ceases.
evidence for your claims. Though I won't be surprised if you can't.
> While we don't know everything about the brain we do know that
> brain damage or drugs may change a person's thinking completely.
know everything about the brain", which is an assertion of incomplete
knowledge, then it false that "we have a physical brain that contains
everything that makes us" because it asserts completeness of knowledge.
Besides, logic dictates we cannot know everything about the brain
because the brain is both the system under inspection and the system
performing the inspection. I suggest you read about incompleteness
theorem and what it means for the limits of knowledge.
You can't have it both ways, so let's have your scientific evidence to
support your claims:
1) We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
including our intelligence.
2) A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because their
brain is not fully developed.
Evidence, please. Quoted and cited, from peer-reviewed journals, thank you.
> A normal trustworthy family man suddenly took an interest in porn
> including child porn. He had a brain scan and they found a tumor
> which when removed made his behaviour back to that of the normal
> family man.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 14, 2017, 7:37:40 AM2/14/17
to
In article <Tue.14.Feb.2017.02.02.27-0800@invalid>,
It fits the evidence we have to date. When new evidence is presented,
the assumption will change to fit the new evidence.
There is zero evidence of anything outside the physical. Until some is
provided, it is foolish to pretend your wish scenario is real.
the assumption will change to fit the new evidence.
There is zero evidence of anything outside the physical. Until some is
provided, it is foolish to pretend your wish scenario is real.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 14, 2017, 7:47:21 AM2/14/17
to
In article <Tue.14.Feb.2017.04.00.10-0800@invalid>,
Posted here hundreds, maybe thousands, of times. I'm sure they'll be
quite easy to find if you actually wish to read them. They're easily
available--most journal articles are behind pay walls, but they almost
always let you read the abstract of the article, which is usually the
least math-heavy section, anyway, and it gives you an idea of some good
search terms to look for more info.
Oh, dear, did it get warm in here? Poor fools that don't know searching
out and finding new knowledge is so exciting. Sad.
quite easy to find if you actually wish to read them. They're easily
available--most journal articles are behind pay walls, but they almost
always let you read the abstract of the article, which is usually the
least math-heavy section, anyway, and it gives you an idea of some good
search terms to look for more info.
Oh, dear, did it get warm in here? Poor fools that don't know searching
out and finding new knowledge is so exciting. Sad.
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 14, 2017, 8:04:01 AM2/14/17
to
In article <Tue.14.Feb.2017.04.00.10-0800@invalid>,
Only to someone who is obviously completely ignorant of how science
works.
works.
Lucifer Morningstar
Feb 14, 2017, 8:05:55 AM2/14/17
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:00:10 -0800, Ed Cartwright
unnecessary work to prove something you already know.
Do you have an alternative explanation?
>>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>>>>> supportable claim.
>>>>
>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>
>>> Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
>>> if they were facts.
>>
>> A child think and acts like a child because their brain is not
>> fully developed.
>
>No shit?
>
>> A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because
>> their brain is not fully developed.
>
>No doubt that's one of those proven facts of yours, so again, post a
>quote and a reference from peer-reviewed journal stating that the brain
>of people with Down syndrome is not fully developed. I will not accept
>anything other than a direct quote using the word undeveloped in
>relation the Down syndrome brain.
Can you see a common factor with both children and Down's Syndrome
adults?
>>>>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>>>>> spirituality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>>>>
>>>>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>>>>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> How your brain functions determines how intelligent you are.
>
>There are competing theories about the source of intelligence, not just
>the one you're pushing.
Please post a quote and a reference from a peer-reviewed journal
stating those competing theories.
At least tell me what they are.
>> Do you know what an MRI is?
>
>Oh, you're not one of those believers in correlation proves causation,
>are you?
Did you know it is possible to scan a person's brain while they
are awake? It has been proven that different areas of the brain
are responsible for different emotions.
>>>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
>>> then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
>>> context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
>>> assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
>>
>> A savant is a person who has a low IQ but can do something
>> mentally that a normal person can't, such as remembering
>> every detail of every baseball match or doing complicated
>> calculations in their head (brain) immediately.
>
>No shit?
Now you know what I am driving at with the questions will
you now answer them?
>> There is really no point in pretending you don't know the brain
>> contains everything that makes "you" and that you will cease to
>> exist when your brain activity ceases.
>
>Don't try emotional tricks, they won't work. You need to provide
>evidence for your claims. Though I won't be surprised if you can't.
You have yet to give me your alternative explanation.
>> While we don't know everything about the brain we do know that
>> brain damage or drugs may change a person's thinking completely.
>
>You just blew your own claim out of the water. If it true that "we don't
>know everything about the brain", which is an assertion of incomplete
>knowledge, then it false that "we have a physical brain that contains
>everything that makes us" because it asserts completeness of knowledge.
Nice try but you are wrong.
We don't know everything that goes on in the universe but we do
know there is no Christian God of the bible.
>Besides, logic dictates we cannot know everything about the brain
>because the brain is both the system under inspection and the system
>performing the inspection. I suggest you read about incompleteness
>theorem and what it means for the limits of knowledge.
>
>You can't have it both ways, so let's have your scientific evidence to
>support your claims:
You Christians are so funny.
>1) We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>including our intelligence.
>
>2) A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because their
>brain is not fully developed.
>
>Evidence, please. Quoted and cited, from peer-reviewed journals, thank you.
Not until you provide evidence that shows otherwise.
>> A normal trustworthy family man suddenly took an interest in porn
>> including child porn. He had a brain scan and they found a tumor
>> which when removed made his behaviour back to that of the normal
>> family man.
>
>So?
His behaviour changed completely then returned to normal.
The only reason you would deny what is common and proven
knowledge is that you are an idiot Christian that thinks science
is offensive to God. Your God is offensive to decent people.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
<ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>In <qcp5achkj2nn19o5s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:32:35 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:02:27 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>>>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>>>>>> including our intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
>>>>> not a supportable claim.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe in a God that created everything?
>>>
>>> That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
>>
>> If you do believe in a God that created everything that would be your
>> reason for denying known and proven facts.
>
>There you go with your wrong assumptions again. To deny your made up
>facts is to deny your made up facts because your made up facts are made
>up. And if they are known and proven facts, you can post a quotes and
>references from peer-reviewed journals, can't you? So, let's see these
>proofs of your facts.
You must be one of those Christians that wants people to do
>In <qcp5achkj2nn19o5s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:32:35 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In <51m5ac9tm266ucc0b...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 02:02:27 -0800, Ed Cartwright
>>>> <ed.car...@no-email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In <l9k5actkfg5k3at3s...@4ax.com>, Lucifer Morningstar
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>>>>>> including our intelligence.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is your assumption, presented as if it were a fact. It certainly is
>>>>> not a supportable claim.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe in a God that created everything?
>>>
>>> That is irrelevant to you presenting your assumptions as if they were facts.
>>
>> If you do believe in a God that created everything that would be your
>> reason for denying known and proven facts.
>
>There you go with your wrong assumptions again. To deny your made up
>facts is to deny your made up facts because your made up facts are made
>up. And if they are known and proven facts, you can post a quotes and
>references from peer-reviewed journals, can't you? So, let's see these
>proofs of your facts.
unnecessary work to prove something you already know.
Do you have an alternative explanation?
>>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can better understand the physical world and
>>>>>>> the spiritual reality of God by studying our own intelligence that has
>>>>>>> enabled us to understand everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We understand there is no spiritual reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is another assumption presented as fact and certainly not a
>>>>> supportable claim.
>>>>
>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>
>>> Again, those are irrelevant to your presentation of your assumptions as
>>> if they were facts.
>>
>> A child think and acts like a child because their brain is not
>> fully developed.
>
>No shit?
>
>> A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because
>> their brain is not fully developed.
>
>No doubt that's one of those proven facts of yours, so again, post a
>quote and a reference from peer-reviewed journal stating that the brain
>of people with Down syndrome is not fully developed. I will not accept
>anything other than a direct quote using the word undeveloped in
>relation the Down syndrome brain.
adults?
>>>>>>> It's a study of what exists within us. It's called philosophy and
>>>>>>> spirituality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think determines how intelligent you are?
>>>>>
>>>>> Presenting one's unsupportable assumptions as if they were fact is a
>>>>> definite sign of a lack of intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> Why does a child think and act like a child?
>>>> Why does a Down's Syndrome adult think and act like a child?
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>
>> How your brain functions determines how intelligent you are.
>
>There are competing theories about the source of intelligence, not just
>the one you're pushing.
stating those competing theories.
At least tell me what they are.
>> Do you know what an MRI is?
>
>Oh, you're not one of those believers in correlation proves causation,
>are you?
are awake? It has been proven that different areas of the brain
are responsible for different emotions.
>>>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what a savant is?
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you say what it is you are driving at with those questions
>>> then I might answer them, but I see no point in doing so without proper
>>> context, especially since you seem to be pushing a barrow full of
>>> assumptions you can neither prove nor support.
>>
>> A savant is a person who has a low IQ but can do something
>> mentally that a normal person can't, such as remembering
>> every detail of every baseball match or doing complicated
>> calculations in their head (brain) immediately.
>
>No shit?
you now answer them?
>> There is really no point in pretending you don't know the brain
>> contains everything that makes "you" and that you will cease to
>> exist when your brain activity ceases.
>
>Don't try emotional tricks, they won't work. You need to provide
>evidence for your claims. Though I won't be surprised if you can't.
>> While we don't know everything about the brain we do know that
>> brain damage or drugs may change a person's thinking completely.
>
>You just blew your own claim out of the water. If it true that "we don't
>know everything about the brain", which is an assertion of incomplete
>knowledge, then it false that "we have a physical brain that contains
>everything that makes us" because it asserts completeness of knowledge.
We don't know everything that goes on in the universe but we do
know there is no Christian God of the bible.
>Besides, logic dictates we cannot know everything about the brain
>because the brain is both the system under inspection and the system
>performing the inspection. I suggest you read about incompleteness
>theorem and what it means for the limits of knowledge.
>
>You can't have it both ways, so let's have your scientific evidence to
>support your claims:
>1) We have a physical brain that contains everything that makes us,
>including our intelligence.
>
>2) A Down's Syndrome adult thinks and acts like a child because their
>brain is not fully developed.
>
>Evidence, please. Quoted and cited, from peer-reviewed journals, thank you.
>> A normal trustworthy family man suddenly took an interest in porn
>> including child porn. He had a brain scan and they found a tumor
>> which when removed made his behaviour back to that of the normal
>> family man.
>
>So?
The only reason you would deny what is common and proven
knowledge is that you are an idiot Christian that thinks science
is offensive to God. Your God is offensive to decent people.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdu3K9INbTY
Christopher A. Lee
Feb 14, 2017, 8:06:38 AM2/14/17
to
Jeanne Douglas
Feb 14, 2017, 8:14:19 AM2/14/17
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages