Religions > Atheism > Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Weatherwax" |
| Date: |
22 Jul 2006 12:10:09 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Sugien wrote:
observed. It also states that there are NO absolutes. A person
can walk into a wall and be stopped by hitting the wall; however
there is a probability however slight that he can walk into that
same wall and instead of being stopped by it, he would go
through it. He would not bust through the wall; but rather his atoms
would sort of slide in-between the atoms of
the wall and re-assemble the other side. According to quantum
mechanics *everything* is not only possible; but has to be for
everything to work. I have said all of that to say this.
Seeing as how one of the most prized theories (the theories of
quantum mechanics) of the scientific community say that there
is the possibility, however slight that there is an All powerful deity
which always was and always will be that spoke all of creation
into existence.
===>You must have a totally twisted mind to come up with such
a ridiculous statement. NO THEORY of "the scientific community
say that there is the possibility, however slight that there is an All
powerful deity which always was and always will be that spoke all
of creation into existence."
That is just ASININE!
Then you are not in my opinions because of your above statement,
as well versed on the scientific community as what you would have people
believe. Quantum Mechanics and the 11 dimensional multiversw string
theory absolutely states that even time travel to
the *past* could be possible and all the time paradoxes can be
accounted by everything that can happen does happen. In other
words if a person traveled to the past and killed their own father
before they were born that the time line would split off at that point and
you would be in a universe where you never traveled to
the past. Maybe you should do a little more reading up on theory's
other evolution (I am not accusing you of not reading other theory's,
but seeing as how you call into question one of the newest pet theory's).
When the theory says that "Everything is possible" seeing as how exacting
those in the science community tend to be,
I would have to say that they must mean absolutely everything is possible.
On of the side theory's is that the reason that gravity is
the weak force is because it is seeping in from one of the other
dimensions where it is a strong force and that the nuclear force being a
strong force here is a weak force there because it is bleeding into
there reality from ours. Or was the M theory (membrane) , yep that
was before M theorists combined with quantum mechanics to come
up with string theory. Maybe some additional reading would be in
order.
Science, by its very nature, rejects supernatural explanations. Isaac
Newton was a very religious man, however he rejected the popular idea that
the planets were guided in their orbits by angels and developed his theory
of gravitation. That theory was testable and provable. That is what makes
Newton a scientist, and Gravitation a scientific theory.
Theories about God are not testable. They cannot be proved or disproved.
Therefore they are not scientific theories.
--Wax
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
.
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
22 Jul 2006 05:53:50 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:RZswg.161150$mF2.133866@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Sugien wrote:
observed. It also states that there are NO absolutes. A person
can walk into a wall and be stopped by hitting the wall; however
there is a probability however slight that he can walk into that
same wall and instead of being stopped by it, he would go
through it. He would not bust through the wall; but rather his atoms
would sort of slide in-between the atoms of
the wall and re-assemble the other side. According to quantum
mechanics *everything* is not only possible; but has to be for
everything to work. I have said all of that to say this.
Seeing as how one of the most prized theories (the theories of
quantum mechanics) of the scientific community say that there
is the possibility, however slight that there is an All powerful deity
which always was and always will be that spoke all of creation
into existence.
===>You must have a totally twisted mind to come up with such
a ridiculous statement. NO THEORY of "the scientific community
say that there is the possibility, however slight that there is an All
powerful deity which always was and always will be that spoke all
of creation into existence."
That is just ASININE!
Then you are not in my opinions because of your above statement,
as well versed on the scientific community as what you would have people
believe. Quantum Mechanics and the 11 dimensional multiversw string
theory absolutely states that even time travel to
the *past* could be possible and all the time paradoxes can be
accounted by everything that can happen does happen. In other
words if a person traveled to the past and killed their own father
before they were born that the time line would split off at that point
and you would be in a universe where you never traveled to
the past. Maybe you should do a little more reading up on theory's
other evolution (I am not accusing you of not reading other theory's,
but seeing as how you call into question one of the newest pet theory's).
When the theory says that "Everything is possible" seeing as how exacting
those in the science community tend to be,
I would have to say that they must mean absolutely everything is
possible. On of the side theory's is that the reason that gravity is
the weak force is because it is seeping in from one of the other
dimensions where it is a strong force and that the nuclear force being a
strong force here is a weak force there because it is bleeding into
there reality from ours. Or was the M theory (membrane) , yep that
was before M theorists combined with quantum mechanics to come
up with string theory. Maybe some additional reading would be in
order.
Science, by its very nature, rejects supernatural explanations. Isaac
Newton was a very religious man, however he rejected the popular idea that
the planets were guided in their orbits by angels and developed his theory
of gravitation. That theory was testable and provable. That is what
makes Newton a scientist, and Gravitation a scientific theory.
Theories about God are not testable. They cannot be proved or disproved.
Therefore they are not scientific theories.
--Wax
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those that
believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact. It takes
no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
22 Jul 2006 08:29:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:53:50 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote in
<svydnd-NzIviMV_ZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:RZswg.161150$mF2.133866@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Sugien wrote:
observed. It also states that there are NO absolutes. A person
can walk into a wall and be stopped by hitting the wall; however
there is a probability however slight that he can walk into that
same wall and instead of being stopped by it, he would go
through it. He would not bust through the wall; but rather his atoms
would sort of slide in-between the atoms of
the wall and re-assemble the other side. According to quantum
mechanics *everything* is not only possible; but has to be for
everything to work. I have said all of that to say this.
Seeing as how one of the most prized theories (the theories of
quantum mechanics) of the scientific community say that there
is the possibility, however slight that there is an All powerful deity
which always was and always will be that spoke all of creation
into existence.
===>You must have a totally twisted mind to come up with such
a ridiculous statement. NO THEORY of "the scientific community
say that there is the possibility, however slight that there is an All
powerful deity which always was and always will be that spoke all
of creation into existence."
That is just ASININE!
Then you are not in my opinions because of your above statement,
as well versed on the scientific community as what you would have people
believe. Quantum Mechanics and the 11 dimensional multiversw string
theory absolutely states that even time travel to
the *past* could be possible and all the time paradoxes can be
accounted by everything that can happen does happen. In other
words if a person traveled to the past and killed their own father
before they were born that the time line would split off at that point
and you would be in a universe where you never traveled to
the past. Maybe you should do a little more reading up on theory's
other evolution (I am not accusing you of not reading other theory's,
but seeing as how you call into question one of the newest pet theory's).
When the theory says that "Everything is possible" seeing as how exacting
those in the science community tend to be,
I would have to say that they must mean absolutely everything is
possible. On of the side theory's is that the reason that gravity is
the weak force is because it is seeping in from one of the other
dimensions where it is a strong force and that the nuclear force being a
strong force here is a weak force there because it is bleeding into
there reality from ours. Or was the M theory (membrane) , yep that
was before M theorists combined with quantum mechanics to come
up with string theory. Maybe some additional reading would be in
order.
Science, by its very nature, rejects supernatural explanations. Isaac
Newton was a very religious man, however he rejected the popular idea that
the planets were guided in their orbits by angels and developed his theory
of gravitation. That theory was testable and provable. That is what
makes Newton a scientist, and Gravitation a scientific theory.
Theories about God are not testable. They cannot be proved or disproved.
Therefore they are not scientific theories.
--Wax
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those that
believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact. It takes
no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
Why would God do that? It sounds quite psychotic when you say it that
way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
22 Jul 2006 10:09:11 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those
that believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact.
It takes no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
Why would God do that? It sounds quite psychotic when you say it
that way.
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 01:38:08 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:rLBwg.162677$mF2.114198@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those
that believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact.
It takes no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
Why would God do that? It sounds quite psychotic when you say it
that way.
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Not at all: God gives men free will and why quote out of text, the previous
verses shows whom will believe it, in other words those that know the truth
will not believe the *lies* of the wicked one, it is NOT saying God will
send the lies; but rather *allow* the wicked one to.
2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan
with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved
then the verses you quoted:
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness.
God *allows* the evil one to come with the lies and those without the truth
in their hearts *will* believe it. God sends the evil one that lies that
is the delusion he is sending. Besides a delusion is NOT a lie, not in the
exact since:
Noun: delusion:
1.)An erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
2)A mistaken opinion or idea
The only lie I see is the one you are tilling by trying to say God did it;
much like what some try to say "The devil made me do it" when it fact all
the devil has ever had the right to do is to "suggest", well except in the
case of Job, and even then God had to give him permission for that. That is
also why the Devil is NOT a fallen angel; because if he was he could *never*
stand before the throne of God in heaven, well with the possible exception
to be judged at the end time. However the ability of the angels even having
*free will* would be a much lengthier debate then the current one.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "teresita" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
22 Jul 2006 10:14:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:09:11 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Better yet, he decieves his prophets and then has them whacked right on
the spot for being deceived:
Ezekiel 14:[9] And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing,
I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon
him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
--
Teresita
http://encyclopediateresita.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 01:40:09 PM |
|
|
"teresita" <teresita@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.23.03.14.51.60868@localhost.localdomain...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:09:11 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Better yet, he decieves his prophets and then has them whacked right on
the spot for being deceived:
Ezekiel 14:[9] And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing,
I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon
him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
What part of *if* do you not understand, iow he is telling them NOT to kill
a profit because if the prophet is deceived God did it and will kill the
prophet; but God didn't kill the prophet so God did NOT deceive him.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "colp" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidencein favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 04:03:25 AM |
|
|
teresita wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:09:11 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Better yet, he decieves his prophets and then has them whacked right on
the spot for being deceived:
The verse is a warning, not an account of an actual occurrance.
Ezekiel 14:[9] And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing,
I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon
him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
Here is the context:
4: Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord
YHWH; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his
heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face,
and cometh to the prophet; I YHWH will answer him that cometh according
to the multitude of his idols;
5: That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they
are all estranged from me through their idols.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 12:26:23 PM |
|
|
"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote
teresita wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn
them for believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Better yet, he decieves his prophets and then has them whacked
right on the spot for being deceived:
The verse is a warning, not an account of an actual occurrance.
Ezekiel 14:[9] And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken
a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch
out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my
people Israel.
Here is the context:
4: Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord
YHWH; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his
heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face,
and cometh to the prophet; I YHWH will answer him that cometh
according to the multitude of his idols;
5: That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they
are all estranged from me through their idols.
Since when is context of any concern to a Christian?
Does a Christian ever take Isaiah 7:14 or 14:12 in context?
No. They don't.
Time after time I have asked Christians to look at the context, and they
refused to. Note that I didn't say they disagreed on the context, or that
they couldn't understand the context. They refuse to even consider the
context.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 01:45:47 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:3jOwg.164890$mF2.161699@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote
teresita wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn
them for believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Better yet, he decieves his prophets and then has them whacked
right on the spot for being deceived:
The verse is a warning, not an account of an actual occurrance.
Ezekiel 14:[9] And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken
a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch
out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my
people Israel.
Here is the context:
4: Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord
YHWH; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his
heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face,
and cometh to the prophet; I YHWH will answer him that cometh
according to the multitude of his idols;
5: That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they
are all estranged from me through their idols.
Since when is context of any concern to a Christian?
Does a Christian ever take Isaiah 7:14 or 14:12 in context?
No. They don't.
Time after time I have asked Christians to look at the context, and they
refused to. Note that I didn't say they disagreed on the context, or that
they couldn't understand the context. They refuse to even consider the
context.
Funny you should use Isaiah 14:12, look back at one of my previous replies
and you will see that you have never ask anyone that knows the *truth* about
Isaiah 14:12 or else you would not have said that. Oh and what are you on
about Isaiah 7:14? Check the time this was posted and you will see I have
been going straight down and posting replies so I did *not* see this before
my using Isaiah 14:12 earlier. As I have said before, the bible it's self
says that *most* Christians have been deceived, not that I have it a hundred
percent right either; but I am just a lump of coal; but when I finish my
studies (the day of my death) I will be a diamond in Gods celestial
treasury. Well unless I fall to temptation before I die; because I am after
all just a man.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence infavor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 06:48:58 PM |
|
|
teresita wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:09:11 +0000, Weatherwax wrote:
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
Better yet, he decieves his prophets and then has them whacked right on
the spot for being deceived:
Ezekiel 14:[9] And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing,
I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon
him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
===>It is just the kind of "god" the author of "EZEKIEL" dreamed up for
his own belief system. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence infavor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 06:45:14 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those
that believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact.
It takes no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
Why would God do that? It sounds quite psychotic when you say it
that way.
Even worse: Sugien's god feeds people lies and then condemn them for
believing those same lies (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)
--Wax
===>How is that different from YHWH hardening the heart of Pharaoh
and then punishing the Egyptians for Pharoh's hard hearted behavior? ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
22 Jul 2006 10:07:24 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:mqd5c250na5cperb6rseua6a6vmk83rk64@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:53:50 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote in
<svydnd-NzIviMV_ZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:RZswg.161150$mF2.133866@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Sugien wrote:
observed. It also states that there are NO absolutes. A person
can walk into a wall and be stopped by hitting the wall; however
there is a probability however slight that he can walk into that
same wall and instead of being stopped by it, he would go
through it. He would not bust through the wall; but rather his atoms
would sort of slide in-between the atoms of
the wall and re-assemble the other side. According to quantum
mechanics *everything* is not only possible; but has to be for
everything to work. I have said all of that to say this.
Seeing as how one of the most prized theories (the theories of
quantum mechanics) of the scientific community say that there
is the possibility, however slight that there is an All powerful
deity
which always was and always will be that spoke all of creation
into existence.
===>You must have a totally twisted mind to come up with such
a ridiculous statement. NO THEORY of "the scientific community
say that there is the possibility, however slight that there is an All
powerful deity which always was and always will be that spoke all
of creation into existence."
That is just ASININE!
Then you are not in my opinions because of your above statement,
as well versed on the scientific community as what you would have
people
believe. Quantum Mechanics and the 11 dimensional multiversw string
theory absolutely states that even time travel to
the *past* could be possible and all the time paradoxes can be
accounted by everything that can happen does happen. In other
words if a person traveled to the past and killed their own father
before they were born that the time line would split off at that point
and you would be in a universe where you never traveled to
the past. Maybe you should do a little more reading up on theory's
other evolution (I am not accusing you of not reading other theory's,
but seeing as how you call into question one of the newest pet
theory's).
When the theory says that "Everything is possible" seeing as how
exacting
those in the science community tend to be,
I would have to say that they must mean absolutely everything is
possible. On of the side theory's is that the reason that gravity is
the weak force is because it is seeping in from one of the other
dimensions where it is a strong force and that the nuclear force being
a
strong force here is a weak force there because it is bleeding into
there reality from ours. Or was the M theory (membrane) , yep that
was before M theorists combined with quantum mechanics to come
up with string theory. Maybe some additional reading would be in
order.
Science, by its very nature, rejects supernatural explanations. Isaac
Newton was a very religious man, however he rejected the popular idea
that
the planets were guided in their orbits by angels and developed his
theory
of gravitation. That theory was testable and provable. That is what
makes Newton a scientist, and Gravitation a scientific theory.
Theories about God are not testable. They cannot be proved or
disproved.
Therefore they are not scientific theories.
--Wax
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those that
believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact. It
takes
no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
Why would God do that? It sounds quite psychotic when you say it that
way.
Maybe to your mind; but not to those that understand what God wants for his
children.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
22 Jul 2006 10:11:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:07:24 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote in
<pu2dncje1vVxel_ZnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:mqd5c250na5cperb6rseua6a6vmk83rk64@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:53:50 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote in
<svydnd-NzIviMV_ZnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:RZswg.161150$mF2.133866@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Sugien wrote:
observed. It also states that there are NO absolutes. A person
can walk into a wall and be stopped by hitting the wall; however
there is a probability however slight that he can walk into that
same wall and instead of being stopped by it, he would go
through it. He would not bust through the wall; but rather his atoms
would sort of slide in-between the atoms of
the wall and re-assemble the other side. According to quantum
mechanics *everything* is not only possible; but has to be for
everything to work. I have said all of that to say this.
Seeing as how one of the most prized theories (the theories of
quantum mechanics) of the scientific community say that there
is the possibility, however slight that there is an All powerful
deity
which always was and always will be that spoke all of creation
into existence.
===>You must have a totally twisted mind to come up with such
a ridiculous statement. NO THEORY of "the scientific community
say that there is the possibility, however slight that there is an All
powerful deity which always was and always will be that spoke all
of creation into existence."
That is just ASININE!
Then you are not in my opinions because of your above statement,
as well versed on the scientific community as what you would have
people
believe. Quantum Mechanics and the 11 dimensional multiversw string
theory absolutely states that even time travel to
the *past* could be possible and all the time paradoxes can be
accounted by everything that can happen does happen. In other
words if a person traveled to the past and killed their own father
before they were born that the time line would split off at that point
and you would be in a universe where you never traveled to
the past. Maybe you should do a little more reading up on theory's
other evolution (I am not accusing you of not reading other theory's,
but seeing as how you call into question one of the newest pet
theory's).
When the theory says that "Everything is possible" seeing as how
exacting
those in the science community tend to be,
I would have to say that they must mean absolutely everything is
possible. On of the side theory's is that the reason that gravity is
the weak force is because it is seeping in from one of the other
dimensions where it is a strong force and that the nuclear force being
a
strong force here is a weak force there because it is bleeding into
there reality from ours. Or was the M theory (membrane) , yep that
was before M theorists combined with quantum mechanics to come
up with string theory. Maybe some additional reading would be in
order.
Science, by its very nature, rejects supernatural explanations. Isaac
Newton was a very religious man, however he rejected the popular idea
that
the planets were guided in their orbits by angels and developed his
theory
of gravitation. That theory was testable and provable. That is what
makes Newton a scientist, and Gravitation a scientific theory.
Theories about God are not testable. They cannot be proved or
disproved.
Therefore they are not scientific theories.
--Wax
No theory which postulates a divine being, can be called scientific.
Which is exactly the way God intended it; because he wants those that
believe to believe using *faith* *not* a testable, provable fact. It
takes
no faith to believe in something you can test and see.
Why would God do that? It sounds quite psychotic when you say it that
way.
Maybe to your mind; but not to those that understand what God wants for his
children.
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God wants. Look at
all of the people who have been killed during wars that have been done
because "it was God's Will." By those standards, God loves bloodshed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 07:19:02 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 07:39:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:19:02 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in
<WlUwg.454201$Fs1.162263@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
Like I'd trust that minion of Beelzebub.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 12:43:16 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:0m58c2tgq6tk926trq97et2ai70gnmdt8u@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:19:02 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in
<WlUwg.454201$Fs1.162263@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
Like I'd trust that minion of Beelzebub.
Oh so you do believe in God, it is just a demon lesser God, hmmm That sure
places you in a much more understandable light.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 05:40:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:43:16 -0400, in alt.atheism
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> wrote in
<W62dnQM-XJwum1jZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@adelphia.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:0m58c2tgq6tk926trq97et2ai70gnmdt8u@4ax.com...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:19:02 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in
<WlUwg.454201$Fs1.162263@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
Like I'd trust that minion of Beelzebub.
Oh so you do believe in God, it is just a demon lesser God, hmmm That sure
places you in a much more understandable light.
No, I just use common cultural references.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence infavor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 08:07:17 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
23 Jul 2006 11:24:25 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
True, but most Christian depend upon somebody to tell them what to believe.
and Pat Robertson talks as if he knows what God thinks.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "testing" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
03 Aug 2006 07:58:03 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:ZXXwg.455410$Fs1.94597@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
True, but most Christian depend upon somebody to tell them what to
believe. and Pat Robertson talks as if he knows what God thinks.
--Wax
and how did you figure out what to believe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidencein favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
03 Aug 2006 11:18:45 PM |
|
|
testing wrote:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:ZXXwg.455410$Fs1.94597@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
True, but most Christian depend upon somebody to tell them what to
believe. and Pat Robertson talks as if he knows what God thinks.
--Wax
and how did you figure out what to believe
===>What they tell you is just what they believe. When you formulate
your own ideas,
you come up with your own idol, thinking it is the same as what they
were talking about. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 12:48:28 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:ZXXwg.455410$Fs1.94597@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
True, but most Christian depend upon somebody to tell them what to
believe. and Pat Robertson talks as if he knows what God thinks.
You need to qualify that with "most Christian" *that do not remember that
the bible is of NO private interpretation* MAY " depend upon somebody to
tell them what to believe" You could also qualify it with , LAZY; because
they are too laze to read for their self they stand the risk of being led
astray. I would much rather study for myself and go astray as to be led
there; because the bible says it will never lead you astray and if you ask
the holy spirit for guidance you will not be led astray.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidencein favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 02:23:57 PM |
|
|
Sugien wrote:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:ZXXwg.455410$Fs1.94597@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
True, but most Christian depend upon somebody to tell them what to
believe. and Pat Robertson talks as if he knows what God thinks.
You need to qualify that with "most Christian" *that do not remember that
the bible is of NO private interpretation* MAY " depend upon somebody to
tell them what to believe" You could also qualify it with , LAZY; because
they are too laze to read for their self they stand the risk of being led
astray.
===>No matter, since no one can show them a "god", they must imagine
one if they wish to believe.
I would much rather study for myself and go astray as to be led
there; because the bible says it will never lead you astray
===>The "bible" says NOTHING.
You are relying on what some WRITERS, compiled in the Bible,
had written many hundreds of years ago.
and if you ask
the holy spirit for guidance you will not be led astray.
===>Another bit of mental self abuse. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidencein favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 02:13:46 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
True, but most Christian depend upon somebody to tell them what to believe.
===>They still have to INTERNALIZE IT somehow, so they make up
their own "god", and make believe it is the same as what they were told.
and Pat Robertson talks as if he knows what God thinks.
===>He does.
He made up his own "god", so he knows what his "god" thinks.
He also knows, if that's how he wanted it, that he does not know
everything his "god" knows. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 12:45:21 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44C41D45.B6AB994B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
some most likely do; but science also *invents* their belief. In the final
analysis it comes down to whom believes what. science believes by what they
can test; but *before* they test they have a *belief* that the tests will
prove this or that. The Believer in God, has no need for tests because
their faith is *stronger*.
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 01:18:43 PM |
|
|
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> writes:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44C41D45.B6AB994B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
some most likely do; but science also *invents* their belief. In the final
analysis it comes down to whom believes what. science believes by what they
can test; but *before* they test they have a *belief* that the tests will
prove this or that.
Yeppers. And this belief in the power of testing has done such things
as ... oh, to pick one example from among thousands -- completely
eradicated smallpox, something that two thousand years of Christian
prayer could not accomplish.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 04:14:22 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ea32u3$lpe$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> writes:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44C41D45.B6AB994B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
some most likely do; but science also *invents* their belief. In the
final
analysis it comes down to whom believes what. science believes by what
they
can test; but *before* they test they have a *belief* that the tests will
prove this or that.
Yeppers. And this belief in the power of testing has done such things
as ... oh, to pick one example from among thousands -- completely
eradicated smallpox, something that two thousand years of Christian
prayer could not accomplish.
I have never said that science is bad or that most of what has come from it
hasn't benefited man; only that they operate from a false premise concerning
God
--
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 04:35:35 PM |
|
|
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:ea32u3$lpe$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Sugien" <dinosoft@adelphia.net> writes:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44C41D45.B6AB994B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
some most likely do; but science also *invents* their belief. In the
final
analysis it comes down to whom believes what. science believes by what
they
can test; but *before* they test they have a *belief* that the tests will
prove this or that.
Yeppers. And this belief in the power of testing has done such things
as ... oh, to pick one example from among thousands -- completely
eradicated smallpox, something that two thousand years of Christian
prayer could not accomplish.
I have never said that science is bad or that most of what has come from it
hasn't benefited man; only that they operate from a false premise concerning
God
So you're not buying into that "by their fruits" criterion?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidencein favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 02:15:43 PM |
|
|
Sugien wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44C41D45.B6AB994B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
some most likely do; but science also *invents* their belief. In the final
analysis it comes down to whom believes what. science believes by what they
can test; but *before* they test they have a *belief* that the tests will
prove this or that.
===>No, they don't.
That is contrary to the method of science.
The Believer in God, has no need for tests because
their faith is *stronger*.
===>Because they believe in a "god" of their own creation.
A product of their own minds. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Finches Evolve Before Scientists' Eyes -- "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling" |
24 Jul 2006 01:06:12 PM |
|
|
Sugien wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:44C41D45.B6AB994B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
The problem is that there is _no_ way to know what God
wants.
All you have to do is ask Pat Robertson.
He will tell you.
--Wax
===Not only PR.
All believers know, since they invent their own gods. -- L.
some most likely do; but science also *invents* their belief. In the final
analysis it comes down to whom believes what. science believes by what they
can test; but *before* they test they have a *belief* that the tests will
prove this or that. The Believer in God, has no need for tests because
their faith is *stronger*.
You forgot the rest of the equation. Once the results of the test are
in, then it is no longer a matter of belief anyway. The scientists then
KNOWS the answer. Belief is irrelevant, it's what you know that
matters.
The "Believer in God" has no need for tests because they wouldn't
understand what they mean anyway.
From the Desk of Paul
/}
@###{ ]::::::Gods word is my Sword::::::>
Then your sword needs sharpening.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
