Go To Townes

[Glenn]

"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. "

https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml

Count the ways...

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:24:43 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. "
>
>https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
>
>Count the ways...

You missed out, or perhaps deliberately omitted, the bit where he
says:

<quote>
People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent
design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then
nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow
for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are
working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole
argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public,
but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because
it's very misleading.
</quote>

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:24:43 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. "
>
>https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
>
>Count the ways...

If all that Townes says above is factually correct, that would mean
if the universe was any other way, he wouldn't be here to remark about
its existence, and since he is here, the universe must be the way it
is. Some people call this circular reasoning.

Also, as a physicist, Townes is aware that he doesn't know if the
universe could have been any other way than it is, and so to conclude
that the universe is evidence of ID is unscientifically presuming his
conclusion.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

Number 2 of the ID Perp's Top Six.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

Having any preferred conclusions about the universe depends on a combination
of current knowledge, current ignorance, confidence in the opinions of
others and belief. What we should know before any speculation is that people
are often wrong.

History has innumerable examples of profound error becoming rigid orthodoxy.
Medicine was basically useless until recently, there was no technology
comparable to modern electronics, modern construction technologies were
impossible. In fact the modern technologies we take for granted were not
only impossible but magical for most of human history.

It has always been a sad fact that each generation believes their
accomplishments are the ultimate and final possibilities. Disputing the
knowledge of the time became heresies. Our current knowledge is an odd mix
of desire and fact making any certainty appear no only premature but
foolish.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

................................

> It has always been a sad fact that each generation believes their
> accomplishments are the ultimate and final possibilities.

I do not think that that "sad fact" is actually a fact at all. It's possible it's something you wish to believe, but I do not think it's a fact at all.

[Bill]

Let's start with the 17th century when science was developing into its
modern form. What scientific and technological facts of that time are
considered valid now?

Bill

[Glenn]

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:26 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:24:43 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. "
> >
> >https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
> >
> >Count the ways...
> You missed out, or perhaps deliberately omitted, the bit where he
> says:

You "missed out" on what I did post above. "Ignored" would probably be more accurate.
That quote said nothing about biological evolution.

>
> <quote>
> People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent
> design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then
> nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow
> for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are
> working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole
> argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public,
> but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because
> it's very misleading.
> </quote>

You deliberately omitted the bit where he says:

"The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent. "

But that would appear to contradict what you claim I omitted, that "they are saying that "everything is made at once and then nothing can change".

What you weren't able to understand about what you posted is "But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too." So Townes accepts God as being active in the Universe. You certainly do not.

Townes responde to a question about fundamentalists being anti-evolution. Intelligent Design is not "anti-evolution" nor "excludes evolution" and does not claim that "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." And you very well knew that.

[Glenn]

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:30:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:24:43 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. "
> >
> >https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
> >
> >Count the ways...
> If all that Townes says above is factually correct, that would mean
> if the universe was any other way, he wouldn't be here to remark about
> its existence, and since he is here, the universe must be the way it
> is. Some people call this circular reasoning.
>

Other people call what you said "bullshit".

"We have found that the world is not deterministic: quantum mechanics has revolutionized physics by showing that things are not completely predictable. That doesn't mean that we've found just where God comes in, but we know now that things are not as predictable as we thought and that there are things we don't understand. "

[jillery]

I acknowledge that what was believed to be true in the 17th century is
different from today. It's almost certain similar will be true four
centuries from now. Do you acknowledge that such changes are contrary
to your claim of rigid orthodoxy, and are instead evidence of new
understanding based on new evidence?

[Martin Harran]

[Replying on Google Groups due to problems with Agent]

Let’s see you give a single example of me saying that God isn’t active in the universe.

>
> Townes responde to a question about fundamentalists being anti-evolution. Intelligent Design is not "anti-evolution" nor "excludes evolution" and does not claim that "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." And you very well knew that.

Tell that to Townes, he's the one you quoted ... oh wait, you can't, he died nearly 8 years ago. Dreadfully inconvenient of him but then again, you have to accept problems when you quote things from 15 years ago when the quotee was already coming up to 90 years of age.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Hmm, you seem to have ignored my point. That point was that your claim that it is a "sad fact" that "each generation believes that their accomplishments are the ultimate and final possibilities," is not a fact. It's hard to see why, if most people believed that current scientific and technological accomplishments are the "ultimate and final possibilities" it could be possible to find say, private investors willing to invest in nuclear fusion, or politicians in a democracy willing to fund scientific research.

As to your other, unrelated point, the 17th century is a fine place to start, because developments since then show clearly that rather than earlier theories being proven wrong, full stop, and replaced with the latest trend, you see theories like Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian optics being incorporated as special cases into broader theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics. Since those sorts of progress have gone on for centuries, "most people" are clever enough to notice that they might continue and that this generation's scientific and technological accomplishments are very unlikely to be the final word. It's great that you've noticed that, too, but in doing so, you are simply noticing what most people have already noticed. As you say so often, you are not unique.

[Bill]

I think what I think is that human knowledge is fragile, mutating
continuously. What was once solid and settled became quaint myth, childish
tales. It will happen again.


Bill

[Bill]

There was a time when disputing the conventional wisdom of the time incurred
the the wrath of the reigning authority, death often followed. One has to
believe most ardently that disagreement deserves death in order to inflict
it on others.

The 20th century abounds with examples, why pretend people have changed?

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

And I think that (1) your claim that each generation thinks its own scientific and technological advances are the last word is obviously incorrect and (2) your characterization of human knowledge as "mutating continuously" leaves out the great extent to which new developments expand and include old ideas rather than replace them outright. Nobody that I know of thinks of Newtonian mechanics as a "quaint myth or childish tale" because it has been shown to be a special case of relativity.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:18:59 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

You seem to have failed to answer the question. Tough to
address your own contradictory statements, isn't it?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[broger...@gmail.com]

The 20th century also abounds with examples of people disagreeing with the prevailing wisdom and suffering no ill consequences, and even, in the cases in which they turn out to be correct, becoming famous for it. Certainly nobody is getting executed for suggesting that general relativity might not be the last word in physics.
>
> Bill

[Bill]

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Is it my skepticism about human
progress? Should I accept the optimistic rhapsodic worship of Man the
humanists espouse? The historical record shows that progress has rarely been
an issue. Moral and social evolution is a modern myth, something modern man
wants to be true but for which there is approximately zero evidence. If
that's the objection then I have nothing to add.

What do you suppose the Nazis thought of Einstein? Why was Lysenko so
revered by the soviets? How do the Islamic terrorists esteem Western
civilization? Ideology matters, just as it always has.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

Did you not read my posts? Several times I explained that my objection was to your claim that "each generation believes that their accomplishments are the ultimate and final possibilities." You ignored that objection to your claim, and brought up other things, some of which I addressed, some of which I ignored.

>Is it my skepticism about human
> progress? Should I accept the optimistic rhapsodic worship of Man the
> humanists espouse? The historical record shows that progress has rarely been
> an issue. Moral and social evolution is a modern myth, something modern man
> wants to be true but for which there is approximately zero evidence. If
> that's the objection then I have nothing to add.

I said nothing about moral and social evolution. Why do you bring it up now?

>
> What do you suppose the Nazis thought of Einstein? Why was Lysenko so
> revered by the soviets? How do the Islamic terrorists esteem Western
> civilization? Ideology matters, just as it always has.

I said nothing at all to suggest that ideology was unimportant.

Once again it seems to me that there are positions you would like to argue against which have little or no relation to anything I said. I explained clearly what my objection to your original post was, three times even. You ignored the explanations and pretended I was making the arguments you find it more satisfying to argue against.
>
> Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:01:29 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

What may be of more value to you would be to look up "false
dichotomy".

But you won't, of course; the self-satisfied and
self-righteous never examine themselves.

>
> The historical record shows that progress has rarely been
>an issue. Moral and social evolution is a modern myth, something modern man
>wants to be true but for which there is approximately zero evidence. If
>that's the objection then I have nothing to add.
>
>What do you suppose the Nazis thought of Einstein? Why was Lysenko so
>revered by the soviets? How do the Islamic terrorists esteem Western
>civilization? Ideology matters, just as it always has.
>
>Bill

[jillery]

Your comment above is a good description of not-rigid-orthodoxy. Why
not just admit your original claim was an hysterical exaggeration at
best?

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:10:59 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:30:04 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:24:43 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >"Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. "
>> >
>> >https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
>> >
>> >Count the ways...
>> If all that Townes says above is factually correct, that would mean
>> if the universe was any other way, he wouldn't be here to remark about
>> its existence, and since he is here, the universe must be the way it
>> is. Some people call this circular reasoning.
>>

>>Also, as a physicist, Townes is aware that he doesn't know if the
>>universe could have been any other way than it is, and so to conclude
>>that the universe is evidence of ID is unscientifically presuming his
>>conclusion.
>>

>Other people call what you said "bullshit".

Other people like you, but not like Townes. You don't even try to say
how what I wrote is "bullshit", a very unscientific reaction.

>"We have found that the world is not deterministic: quantum mechanics has revolutionized physics by showing that things are not completely predictable. That doesn't mean that we've found just where God comes in, but we know now that things are not as predictable as we thought and that there are things we don't understand. "

That some things are not completely predictable, that we don't
understand everything, does not mean the world is not deterministic.
To say otherwise is unscientific.

[Bill]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:

...

>> >> I think what I think is that human knowledge is fragile, mutating
>> >> continuously. What was once solid and settled became quaint myth,
>> >> childish tales. It will happen again.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> > And I think that (1) your claim that each generation thinks its own
>> > scientific and technological advances are the last word is obviously
>> > incorrect

Possibly incorrect but not demonstrably so

>> and (2) your characterization of human knowledge as "mutating
>> > continuously" leaves out the great extent to which new developments
>> > expand and include old ideas rather than replace them outright.

I was thinking of all human history not the tiny fraction of, say, the last
hundred years or so. For most people, most of the time, change is slow and
painful with little tangible benefit.

>> > Nobody
>> > that I know of thinks of Newtonian mechanics as a "quaint myth or
>> > childish tale" because it has been shown to be a special case of
>> > relativity.

Newton wondered about how things worked and proposed ideas that could be
tested. He was also an accomplished alchemist.

Bill

[jillery]

This is the 21st century. If you know of any examples from the
present, it's almost certain they are of those who think apostasy from
rigid orthodoxy is an offense deserving of death, ex. the crown prince
of Saudi Arabia, ex. president of the Russian Federation, and not from
those who recognize that new evidence supports new understanding.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:20:04 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...
> >> >> I think what I think is that human knowledge is fragile, mutating
> >> >> continuously. What was once solid and settled became quaint myth,
> >> >> childish tales. It will happen again.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill

................................................

> >> > And I think that (1) your claim that each generation thinks its own
> >> > scientific and technological advances are the last word is obviously
> >> > incorrect
> Possibly incorrect but not demonstrably so

Certainly incorrect. As I said in a previous post, if it were true that each generation thinks its own scientific and technological advances are the last word, it's pretty hard to explain, for example, how anyone finds private investors for nuclear fusion projects, or why democratically elected governments fund scientific research.

> >> and (2) your characterization of human knowledge as "mutating
> >> > continuously" leaves out the great extent to which new developments
> >> > expand and include old ideas rather than replace them outright.
> I was thinking of all human history not the tiny fraction of, say, the last
> hundred years or so. For most people, most of the time, change is slow and
> painful with little tangible benefit.

OK. I was confused. I didn't understand that when you said "Let's start with the 17th century when science was developing into its modern form" you really meant, "let's consider all of human history." My mistake.

[Bill]

There have been about 18 billion people since humans emerged and most of
those have had their own reality. The winning reality is the one lasts for
at least one generation. If I am to talk about people, I need to include
everyone which is usually my intention.

I mentioned the 17th century because the sciences are generally believed to
have started about then. We in this magical age want the imprimatur of
science to validate our opinions so the 17 century seemed a good place to
start. My generalizations generally apply to all humans regardless of the
era in which they lived; we are all pretty much the same after all.

Bill

[broger...@gmail.com]

I understand that it is your intention to make claims about everyone, rather than only about yourself. I do not doubt your claims about yourself, but your claims about what everyone thinks, like the claim that each generation thinks its own scientific and technological accomplishments are the last word, are often at variance with my experience of what actual other people think.

>
> I mentioned the 17th century because the sciences are generally believed to
> have started about then. We in this magical age want the imprimatur of
> science to validate our opinions so the 17 century seemed a good place to
> start. My generalizations generally apply to all humans regardless of the
> era in which they lived; we are all pretty much the same after all.

Yes, it is obvious that you are attempting to make generalizations about all humans; it's just a problem that "we are all pretty much the same" is not a particularly convincing argument in support of your generalizations.
>
> Bill

[RonO]

On 11/28/2022 12:24 AM, Glenn wrote:
> "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here."
>
> https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
>
> Count the ways...
>

QUOTE:
That sounds like you agree with the "intelligent design" movement, the
latest framing of creationism, which argues that the complexity of the
universe proves it must have been created by a guiding force.

I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe
and our lives, that God has a continuing influence - certainly his laws
guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of
creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it.
The Jews couldn't know very much at that time about the lifetime of the
universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could
and I think they did remarkably well, but it's just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in
schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up.
People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything
is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no
changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one

sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is
a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way.
If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be
here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear
laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just
the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of
universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to
turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic
postulate - it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes
and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other

possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so
specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's
very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is
here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have
created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and
chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But
that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be
taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design,
I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can
change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and
plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard
for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a
stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a
shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading.

END QUOTE:

This interview, apparently, occurred during the Kansas kangaroo court
IDiotic fiasco that occurred before Dover demonstrated that there wasn't
any ID science worth teaching. The saddest thing about the Kansas
"Evolution Hearings" was that even though the ID perps promoted the ID
"science" they ran the bait and switch on the Kansas rubes and only gave
them the obfuscation and denial switch scam, that had nothing to do with
intelligent design, according to the ID perps. Sadly, the Kansas
creationist rubes bent over for the switch scam and adopted it. Enough
of the IDiot creationists were voted out of office the next election
(the same thing that happened in Kansas in 1999) that the new State
board of education could reject the creationist science standards, and
restored the science standards to what they had been.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

Reality is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
times bigger than you, Bill. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Glenn]

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 12:24 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here."
> >
> > https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml
> >
> > Count the ways...
> >
> QUOTE:
> That sounds like you agree with the "intelligent design" movement, the
> latest framing of creationism, which argues that the complexity of the
> universe proves it must have been created by a guiding force.
>
> I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe
> and our lives, that God has a continuing influence

And you're both a perp and your own rube. Martin is not far behind you.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 21:58:04 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

[...]

>And you're both a perp and your own rube. Martin is not far behind you.

Is that the same Martin who is still waiting for you to give a single
example of him saying that God isn’t active in the universe?

[RonO]

SNIP and run. Townes obviously does not believe in the ID scam as
perpetrated by the ID perps. You may keep lapping up the second rate
denial stupidity, but Townes has incorporated Fine Tuning into his
creationist beliefs. Most IDiots do not want to do that because most of
them are YEC, and don't want to believe that any designer was doing
anything over 13 billion years ago.

REPOST:

QUOTE:
That sounds like you agree with the "intelligent design" movement, the
latest framing of creationism, which argues that the complexity of the
universe proves it must have been created by a guiding force.

I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe

and our lives, that God has a continuing influence - certainly his laws
guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of
creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it.
The Jews couldn't know very much at that time about the lifetime of the
universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could
and I think they did remarkably well, but it's just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in
schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up.
People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything
is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no

changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one

sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is
a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way.
If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be
here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear
laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just
the way they are for us to be here.

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You know it is.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:23:00 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 1:20:05 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 21:58:04 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >And you're both a perp and your own rube. Martin is not far behind you.
>> Is that the same Martin who is still waiting for you to give a single
>> example of him saying that God isn’t active in the universe?
>
>You know it is.

I thought it was but seeing how many times you have accused me of
saying you said something when you didn't say it, I thought it best to
check. Now that you have confirmed that it is me, any chance of you
giving a single example of me saying that God isn't active in the
universe?

[Glenn]

You don't think that was an admission that you have actually said God isn't active in the universe. And you know I didn't say you have ever said that.
Good perp stuff, Martin. Oh, grats to the "oh, he's an old man" stuff, too.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 20:09:42 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 10:15:05 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:23:00 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 1:20:05 AM UTC-7, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 21:58:04 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >> >And you're both a perp and your own rube. Martin is not far behind you.
>> >> Is that the same Martin who is still waiting for you to give a single
>> >> example of him saying that God isn’t active in the universe?
>> >
>> >You know it is.
>> I thought it was but seeing how many times you have accused me of
>> saying you said something when you didn't say it, I thought it best to
>> check. Now that you have confirmed that it is me, any chance of you
>> giving a single example of me saying that God isn't active in the
>> universe?
>
>You don't think that was an admission that you have actually said God isn't active in the universe. And you know I didn't say you have ever said that.

No admission involve, it was a way of showing that you have nothing to
show to back up your accusation against me. That's because there is no
truth whatsoever in your accusation, it's just you yet again playing
your silly game of trying to throw bullshit in the hope that some of
it might stick. You really need to think of changing your bull,
however, because the bullshit it has been producing totally lacks
stickability.

It would be a strange admission anyway, as I am totally convinced that
God *is* active in the universe. Unlike you and your ID bedfellows, I
don't think He spends his time fiddling about with molecules and DNA,
I think He has far more important things to do with His time like
working with people's souls.

>Good perp stuff, Martin. Oh, grats to the "oh, he's an old man" stuff, too.

I haven't a clue what you are babbling about there.

[Glenn]

You're an atheist.

> >Good perp stuff, Martin. Oh, grats to the "oh, he's an old man" stuff, too.
> I haven't a clue what you are babbling about there.

Of course you don't.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 08:47:42 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

Aw, poor Glenn, his prize bull is constipated or something and can't
produce any new shit, Glenn has to use the stuff that has been lying
around for ages and is totally dried up.

>
>> >Good perp stuff, Martin. Oh, grats to the "oh, he's an old man" stuff, too.
>> I haven't a clue what you are babbling about there.
>
>Of course you don't.

If you knew that then there wasn't much point in you saying it in the
first place but then again, there's not much point in a lot of stuff
you come out with.

[Glenn]

There's your "soul" talking.

> >
> >> >Good perp stuff, Martin. Oh, grats to the "oh, he's an old man" stuff, too.
> >> I haven't a clue what you are babbling about there.
> >
> >Of course you don't.
> If you knew that then there wasn't much point in you saying it in the
> first place but then again, there's not much point in a lot of stuff
> you come out with.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 12:11:07 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

You should try Dulcolax, see if you can get better shit.