Religions > Atheism > Day 4 Gandy Challenge - Prove modern science is based on process metaphyics *****
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2006 08:10:59 AM |
| Object: |
Day 4 Gandy Challenge - Prove modern science is based on process metaphyics ***** |
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
*****! *****! *****! *****!
Gandy, you made a stupid claim. Either back it up or
admit you are the biggest liar and wierdest freak on AA.
"Accepted" by who? Not by scientists!
This is so stupid you have to be judged as being
totally ignorant.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying |
14 Sep 2006 10:57:22 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gil8eabc1g339@corp.supernews.com...
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gh2209l2toree@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
Yes. They can check and they'll find this....
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying Gandy! Admit you said something STUPID. |
14 Sep 2006 07:04:30 PM |
|
|
Heh! Heh!
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Put up or admit you are a liar and a rather bad one at that.
Intellectual lightweight!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying Barwell! |
14 Sep 2006 08:20:56 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gjrhoprk7b829@corp.supernews.com...
Heh! Heh!
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying Gandy! |
15 Sep 2006 04:40:46 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
Lies, lies, lies. You sure do lie a lot!
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
All this is from process theology's own journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying Barwell! |
15 Sep 2006 05:26:58 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gm7g85jler97a@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A
DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
Lies, lies, lies. You sure do lie a lot!
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying Gandy! |
15 Sep 2006 10:08:02 PM |
|
|
Keep lying! Let the whole world see you are a liar!
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
Lies, lies, lies. You sure do lie a lot!
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
All this is from process theology's own journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Stop Lying Barwell! |
15 Sep 2006 11:14:55 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gmqls51l20hf3@corp.supernews.com...
Keep lying! Let the whole world see you are a liar!
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
And Barwell selectively edited a single article that WAS IN FACT A
DEFENSE
OF PROCESS THEOLOGY.
Lies, lies, lies. You sure do lie a lot!
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Gandy Gooseboy Challenge - Stop Lying Gandy! |
16 Sep 2006 12:52:24 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
up on your bizarre and hate filled lies?
http://www.religion-online.org/
Process Studies Journal
Al this is from process theologysown journals!
Do you think people are so stupid they can't figure
this out if I post the URLs? Do you think nobody will
bother to check up and see what a brazen, pathological,
chronic liar you are?
123
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics by David Ray Griffin
Even Charles Hartshorne, the preeminent interpreter of process thinking,
admitted that he could not reconcile his doctrine of god with relativity
physics. The author discusses the dichotomy between the two ideas and
offers some solutions.
Griffin is a long time process theology proponent.
Why do you lie a lie so easily debunked?
because you just do not care if you are a liar found out!
You must be desperate to keep reposting this lie!
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 - Stop Lying Barwell! |
16 Sep 2006 01:04:48 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gn4a2m2m9r3a7@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Barwell dug up the work of people who are openly critical of process
theology and exactly one process theologian who mentioned a doubt. The
subject is essentially an open debate on only one aspect of process
theology.
Barwell went to articles that had been printed in Process
Theology's own journals, not hostile outsiders
The people criticizing were open critics of process philosophy.
You lied, Barwell. When are you going to admit it?
Why are you lying here when people can easily check
If they check, this is what they'll find.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 - Stop Lying Gandy! |
16 Sep 2006 09:11:21 AM |
|
|
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
Can't back up your studid claim?
Snigger!
Too stubborn and arrogant to admit you are a screw up that makes
up bizarre crap off the top of your head!?
Obviously, you know little about science, nothing about Whiteheads
metaphysical crap!
Like Septic, you will never admit you err!
No matter how glaring and stupid your error is.
You just try to brazen it out and hope nobody notices.
Everybody notices!
You make a claim, you back it up, them's the rules.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 - Stop Lying Barwell! |
16 Sep 2006 11:55:15 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12go1hj1gjvfr79@corp.supernews.com...
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SmartyPants" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Gandy Challenge - Prove modern science is based on process metaphyics ***** |
14 Sep 2006 09:10:30 AM |
|
|
Dude, what is the point in proving that Gandy is ignorant?
So everyone will stop listening to what he says?
If people base their opinions on what is said in this forum, then they
are already morons.
So why does it matter if he is a total idiot or not?
Your just wasting space here...
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Gandy Challenge - Prove modern science is based on process metaphyics ***** |
14 Sep 2006 07:15:28 PM |
|
|
SmartyPants wrote:
Dude, what is the point in proving that Gandy is ignorant?
So everyone will stop listening to what he says?
I want him to have t admit it.
This ***** harrasses me everytime I post.
This time he said something so bizarre
its just laughable.
Everytime I post this ***** is all over me
calling me a liar and more.
But again and again he says stupid, stupid things!
If everytime I post this shitty net bully
attacks, attacks, attacks, lies and lies, he
gets his stupidity shoved RIGHT BACK.
And it goes on until I can post again without
being harrassed by this *****.
Science is no more based on process metaphyics that
its based on Santa Clause.
he doesnt know *****.
Unless you have any other way to get a net
kook troll net bully off my back!
I would like to be able to post without 4 Gandy
***** posts calling me a liar and harassing me.
But as long as he refuses to stop, he's going
to get it right back.
He cannot back up his bizarre lie and he has not god
the manhood to say "I am a screw up and I made that up."
When I can post again, I'll stop.
I'll be fucked in hell before I let this hateful *****
drive me off this newsgroup.
*************************************************
GANDY's STUPIDEST STUPIDITIES
*************************************************
WBARWELL
Something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore something must have always existed
far back into infinity. There was never a
time when nothing did not exist.
Parmenides nailed this one.
Something always existed.
GANDY
Another unsupported assertion
WBARWELL
Really, you are NOT going to actually think, are
you?
Something always existed, as Parmenides pointed
out, there must have been.
Why? Well if you cannot figure it out, your
ability to reason is impaired.
I can't help you here.
GANDY
Prove it, Poser.
*************************************************
If a powerful computer from today's Universe
could predict tomorrow's Universe, it could
tell us what to do today to guarantee
tomorrow's outcome to our specifications.
Gandalf Grey wrote:
But it wouldn't be morally responsible, moron.
Its programmers would, cretin.
But it's programmers wouldn't know the future,
Moron. You're getting very confused again,
Barwell. Maybe it's time for you to put your
head between your legs.
If you have a computer that predicts the future,
you ask it to tell you what that future is. Its
a computer that predicts the future, right? If
its not what you want, you make initial condition
changes and check what that does until you get
what you want.
*************************************************
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Gandy Challenge - Prove Barwell Has a Brain |
14 Sep 2006 08:29:40 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gjs6mgib808d2@corp.supernews.com...
SmartyPants wrote:
Dude, what is the point in proving that Gandy is ignorant?
So everyone will stop listening to what he says?
I want him to have t admit it.
Well, your first step toward that would be to prove that I'm wrong. And
since the only thing I've dealt with you on is your own stupidity, your real
first step would be to come up with a decent argument.
Since you haven't done that and since there's absolutely no sign that you're
going to, you're basically up the creek.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Gandy Challenge - Gandy dodges and tries to shift burden of proof! |
15 Sep 2006 04:39:11 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Well, your first step toward that would be to prove that I'm wrong. And
since the only thing I've dealt with you on is your own stupidity, your
real first step would be to come up with a decent argument.
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!
You made the claim. You support your claim!
You made the claim! Its up to you to show your
claim is true!
Cites? Thought not!
None of thi snet kook shifting ofburdens ofproof!
Now, I have been reading science for 40 years now, and
in all that time I never saw any scientists mention Whitehead, much
less say Whiteheads pathetic metaphyics is basis of modern science!
I am sure if Whiteheads crap was basis of all modern science,
somebody would have mentioned it.
Now the question is this. Did you pull that crap out of
your fat ***** or did you get it from some process theology moron?
I say you pulled it out of you *****, that is made up a huge,
whopping stuid lie.
You made the lie, you support it.
Or tell us how you made up this lie and spewed it
thinking you could trick people with a stupid lie.
Squirm you effing liar, squirm!
Cites! Cites! Cites!
You made up a lie you cannot support!
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 4 Barwell Challenge - Barwell dodges and tries to shift burden of proof! |
15 Sep 2006 05:34:47 PM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gm7dl5f2687fe@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Well, your first step toward that would be to prove that I'm wrong. And
since the only thing I've dealt with you on is your own stupidity, your
real first step would be to come up with a decent argument.
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!
You made the claim.
Actually, YOU made the claim.
From: wbarwell <wbarw...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.talk.creationism,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Does God Exist?
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <cq0gu6$7ru@library2.airnews.net>
References: 1103304751.6b9de4428728e571de47f367dde14ea9@teranews
Barwell wrote:
One cannot prove god exists, but one can easily disprove
god exists. Since god does not exist, that is why he cannot
be proven to exist. Since god can be proven not to exist,
he cannot possibly exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
